In today's Western societies, diversity is considered welcome and worthy of support. But what is the real impact of diversity in thinking?
The reason often given for promoting diversity in organizations or societies is that heterogeneous groups are better able to overcome challenges. Diversity is usually boldly defined in terms of characteristics such as gender, sexual orientation, color, and ethnicity. However, overcoming challenges is less about sexual orientation or skin color than it is about diversity in thinking.
Enduring diversity of thought is much more strenuous than mixing a group in terms of gender or origin. My life experience has taught me that in a group made up of people with very different backgrounds and approaches, it can be difficult or even impossible to agree on a common approach. Everything is the subject of controversial discussion. On the other hand, in homogeneous groups whose members “tick” in a similar way, the existing “silent agreement” allows efficient work. However, such homogeneous groups run the risk of clinging to the tried and tested and recognizing the need for change too late.
Diversity of thought is probably similar to mutations in biological evolution: under stable environmental conditions, a well adapted organism with a stable genome fares best; most mutations are useless or even harmful. However, when it comes to adapting to changing environmental conditions, a species benefits from a diversified gene pool. Similarly, homogeneity in a group's thinking is conducive to performing routine tasks efficiently. However, when it comes to developing something new or coping with changing conditions, one-dimensional thinking carries a high risk of failure, while diversity of thought is more likely to lead to suitable solutions.
Applied to science, this insight means that if a scientific discipline has a generally accepted paradigm, this allows for a high level of acceptance in knowledge transfer as well as routine knowledge production in research. This avoids the unproductive disputes that some scientific disciplines have experienced when competing schools of thought have fought for supremacy. On the other hand, a lack of diversity of thought is detrimental to the achievement of scientific breakthroughs and the exploration of new territory. Diversity of thought, however, is not a panacea; it comes at a price - the high cost of separating the useful from the useless.
Comments powered by CComment