As you find definitions for Democracy, Socialism, Capitalism and Communism, you will undoubtedly confront the notion of diversity — what is it, why is it important, how do ensure diversity since it’s apparently important for human evolution.
In all, as you define the above terms, you will be examining the characteristics of our society, particularly as we discuss Ecological Democracy. Diversity shows up here, again.
Scott E. Page, who came to Midd last year, wrote The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. (Read some of the book here)
I suggest that you find the time, either alone or in groups, to check out Scott’s lecture at the University of Virginia and follow his logic. Regardless of what endeavor you choose in the future, thinking about how diversity works — and can work — will be extraordinarily useful. Of course, thinking about how we might be able to enable diversity to evolve in a healthy manner with Democracy — or whatever else we come up with as we contemplate our world — is extraordinarily important.
The Lecture: Leveraging Diversity
After watching the lecture, if, by group say, each group synthesizes and summarizes what you hear and then point to what you find important will be very useful; then if each person of each group adds and comments on what others are summarizing and saying, this will be useful too — and perhaps a model of what Page is talking about.
Scott Pages brushes upon the idea the elite in our society are exposed to uniformity due to the lack of an adequate evaluation of testing and standards which would actually promote the opposite.
Cognitive diversity simply cannot exist in a society which measures intelligence with the same inefficient standardized tests that lack any sense of personal identity. America is basically an assembly line which formulates the same drones, evaluates them according to the same unfair rankings, and ships them off with the ability to solve the same limited set of problems. This is scary. If problems occur in which the narrowly equipped elite cannot solve, distress and turmoil become apparent.
One of Faber’s key statements which we’ve tied in is the idea the Ecological Democracy cannot exist in a society which limits it’s a ability to think. By promoting self-interest, the free market creates a pressure for society to stray away from working collectively, and from evaluating “Who is good at what? And based on that, How can we improve standard of living as a whole?” Instead, we question “How can I, the individual, make money in the most efficient way possible?” Hence, what Scott Page beautifully infers in his lecture, is our struggle for ecological democracy is parallel to our inability to challenge different forms of intelligences and create an respective elite that is diversified in thought.
Warmly,
Fred, Zoe, Joey, Ciré
Okay, so this is an opinion, I imagine. I’m not sure what the examples might be that support what it is you’re saying. I say this because I don’t recall where Page speaks about “America is basically an assembly line which formulates the same drones, evaluates them according to the same unfair rankings, and ships them off with the ability to solve the same limited set of problems.”?
No, Page does not. Page’s lecture is about giving off different occasions in which cognitive diversity is vital. i.e A man might let his ego come in between his analysis of something like the fertilization of an egg, causing him to produce a conclusion that is completely off.
So…
As much as our analogy was an opinion, it was mainly to build off the idea that the US ranks it’s individuals with the same mediocre standardized testings, and then classifies the tested. (From Empire of Illusion) This is a dangerous combination with Page’s logic in terms of how we classify intelligence. Our society has a tendency to allow the same “drones,” to undergo the same suffocating set of tests. These tests will allow Drone A, who has all the answers correct to become the elite college student while Drone B, who could perhaps contribute something invaluable is pushed aside because of his lack of conformity to narrow-minded questions being asked. Drone A might end up on Wall Street or on the Senate, or working for a firm. Drowned in the reality that his intelligence has been wasted, Drone B might end up homeless, or on cocaine.
Page desires reform in the way America classifies intelligence. His lecture is mostly prime examples on where different approaches linked together produce stellar conclusions. I feel every input is valuable, especially in todays society. Just ask yourself, when responding to a statement, does one feel much more accomplished when he explains his opinion, or when he just recites solid fact? Does one want to be challenged in his/her ideas, perhaps even proven wrong? Is there a benefit to this type of analysis?
(I think so)
In “Empire of Illusion,” Hedges includes Wolin’s conclusion that” corporations determine who gets heard and who does not.” Hedges continues this idea by explaining that corporations are not paying for our empire of illusion, but rather individuals in the middle and lower class are.
Furthermore, Scott Page discusses the intricacies of diversity by explaining that “the answers lie diversity–not what we look like on the outside, but what we look like within, our distinct tools and abilities.” Corporations suppress these voices that are associated with different points of view–those who come from different backgrounds who could be of use. Recent problems require new perspectives that can be achieved through diverse opinions. Hedges, in the chapter “Illusion of Wisdom,” mentions that schools fail to adequately teach students to question and think. He argues that people from elite schools analyze problems too similarly. Basically, a change in the education system in necessary to solve these societal problems.
-Nick, Alex, Jack, and Dorrie
Only, Page gives examples of where corporations and educational institutions (U of Michigan to be precise) are examining ways of working with diversity because they see the benefits, so…
Scott Page’s lecture relates directly to many of the topics we’ve discussed in class. His main message is that groups with diverse academic backgrounds are better suited for problem solving than a group of specialists in a certain field. He also states that in many cases the people from the most prestigious schools who may appear on paper to be better qualified than others, are oftentimes less capable in group problem solving situations. As the other group said, this relates to what we’ve been talking about in class because we are currently a country run by the few. The people in power in our country all come from the same ivy league schools and have the same educational backgrounds. As a result there isn’t any diversity in the thinking or problem solving of American politics. The problems we currently face with respect to climate change are problems that no one has ever had to deal with before, so we need blood to come up with ways of solving them. A diverse group of people from different socio economic backgrounds who specialize in a variety of fields (for example, environmental science, sociology, and political science) is who we need to have working on these issues.
On a different note, another point that Mr. Page brought up that we found interesting was the idea of sticking to your guns in group situations. Oftentimes when doing group work, people tend to listen to the “smartest” or most assertive person in the group and go against their own intuition. Page says that you need to find the right balance of listening to others and staying true to what you think in order to succeed in group work. This struck home with us because we’ve all had experiences like this in high school (and even college) where you don’t speak up even if you think you know the right answer or have a better idea. It’s important to value your own opinions so that a brilliant idea doesn’t get wasted because you were too afraid to bring it up.
-Cooper, AJ, Mike, and Sonam
Actually, “sticking to one’s guns,” as you phrase it, sort of, comes from Emerson: when imagination and creativity strike, put a sign on our door: genius at work. Of course, you have to consider what “genius” means, which is not what you would automatically think — so a good moment to look up “genius.”
In Scott Page’s lecture on diversity he explains how the nature of science has developed over time, from individual research to diverse teams that can approach a problem from many different angles. He explains how the different life experiences of people add different perspectives to teams and increases their ability to predict accurately and solve problems. He uses the phrase “wisdom of crowds” to emphasize how diversity in groups is just as important than the collective intelligence of its members. The concept of diversity and its effect on results is important to understand because our generation is going to face a lot of new issues that will require collective action to solve. This applys directly to ecological democracy because as we have discussed in class the power to effect change in our society lies in the hands of very few, and to change the problems that we face today we are going to need to involve the rest of our society including the poor, the uneducated, and the opressed. Many people are under the impression that the best way to solve a problem is to gather the experts but as we found in this lecture that is not always the case.
Deeply concerned,
-Liam, Hig, Charlotte, Emily
Actually, he’s explaining how diversity can help in this evolution (of science). It’s by no way there — not at all, which is Page’s point. The first one to look at this in meaningful ways was EO Wilson, the Harvard biologist, in Consilience. Look up “consilience” and familiarize yourselves with this term. Page didn’t fall out of the sky with this; there’s always an evolution. The reason why Page is so adamant is that if you look around, we’re working in opposition to fundamental, physical laws of diversity. This is what he’s trying to prove to you with data.