Annotated quotes on Thought Diversity
A well-known study by Thomas Malone of MIT’s Sloan School of Business examined the secrets of collective intelligence - what makes a group of people intelligent?
You should search the web for the full study, but here’s the gist: The group’s intelligence was not the aggregate or average IQ of the group members. One major contributing factor for a group’s intelligence is the proportion of active participants. If for whatever reason, a small part of the group dominated the conversation, it affected the group intelligence adversely. My interpretation was that this was a symptom of two things - the vocal part of the group lacked the empathy for the sentiments of the silent segment. And the silence of a part of the group affected the thought diversity.
I’ve wondered if that’s not the same case for individuals. Is a person's intelligence influenced by their similarity to their friends? I believe so.
In general, our mind expands by considering contradictions. By lacking exposure to opposing points of view, or refusing to consider contradicting thoughts, we risk pushing ourselves into extreme positions without being aware. When we surround ourselves with like-minded people, we cut out the input from the rest of the population. Content suggestions on social media platforms exacerbate the problem. They suggest what they think we may want to read, things that are already aligned with our beliefs.
When we’re insensate to how homogenous our world has become, our view misses several vital dimensions that allow us to see things for what they are.
"When you realize how susceptible you are to others’ emotions, you become more thoughtful about who you surround yourself with. Who you follow on Twitter, who you watch on TV, where you work, who you hang out with after work. Who you marry – that’s a huge one. The higher the stakes, the more thoughtful you need to be about those who surround you."
- Morgan Housel, in this article
Dimensions In Reality
Most real view issues have hundreds of dimensions. When I read a piece of news, I view it through my economic, religious, social, academic and moral points of view. Even if I change the point of view on one of these dimensions, I may view the news piece entirely differently. Real word demands that we traverse a few of these dimensions before forming an opinion.
For example, you shouldn’t support the position of a leader or political party on one issue just because your views are aligned on another.
“If your opinions on one topic can be predicted from your opinions on another, you may be in the grip of an ideology. When you truly think for yourself, your opinions won’t be predictable.”
- Kevin Kelly.
Scales of Grey
I’ve made a rule for myself about important events with polarized points of view. I call it five shades of grey. When I want to think clearly about a polarizing event, I try to write at least 5 grades of support for the issue from one extreme to another, starting from ‘fully disagree’ to ‘fully agree’, for example. It enables me to plot myself along the continuum, and also helps me identify why some might have extreme points of view.
Think of a polarizing issue when you read the following: Most people tend to think of themselves to be fairly moderate, close to the centre, but rate most people they disagree with to be extreme on the other side. I try to explicitly describe (preferably in writing) five or more shades of grey for an issue. It encourages more nuanced thinking, and helps be sensitive to the differences among the people among those I disagree with.
For example, a recent hot button issue in India was the consecration of the deity in the Rama Temple in Ayodhya. The following are six grades of grey in the support spectrum:
- This should show the Muslims. It’s a Hindu country!
- A much needed civilizational correction. No need for the Muslims to be resentful.
- The temple is ok, but I wish they hadn’t built it on the site of the destroyed mosque.
- Why is all this necessary now? Could we not have waited for greater buy in?
- I don’t need such overt symbols. Rama is in my heart.
- Everyone building the temple and supporting the movement are bigots. I hate them!
This example was inspired by a post by Ramana Balachandran, the Carnatic music artiste. See the following link where he politely chastises a fellow artiste for characterizing all the people in disagreement as being in the extreme camp.
https://twitter.com/_RamanaB_/status/1750921991048003801
And it’s ok not to have an opinion even on polarizing issues. Ignore folks who say, ‘if you are not with us, you’re one of them!’
"It’s possible to not have an opinion…. You don’t have to turn this (lack of an opinion) into something, ... You don’t have to let this upset you. You don’t have to think something about everything. "
- Marcus Aurelius.
Talking to the “Enemy”
"So much of what people call 'conviction' is actually a willful disregard of facts that might change their mind."
- Morgan Housel
In this age of polarized social media cacophony, a valuable skill is to be able to talk to people with opposing points of view, and really listen, without being upset. In addition to learning if the opponents have valid points, you also learn their arguments in depth.
“I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do”
- Charlie Munger
If the conversation really goes well, there is a small chance that one of you might convince the other. How can that be a bad thing?
"It’s the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it. "
- Aristotle.
Changing one’s mind - the intelligent person’s prerogative
History is full of examples of great people changing their minds. Albert Einstein was a self-avowed pacifist. He abhorred people killing each other. He laid the theoretical foundation for the nuclear bomb with his theory on mass-energy equivalence. He initially believed that the idea was solely theoretical, and that it was impractical for someone to actually use the theory to build an energy source, including one for use as a weapon.
On hearing credible reports that the Germans were building a nuclear bomb, he changed his mind, and wrote to President Roosevelt in 1933, advocating an American program with similar goals.
After the allies won the war, it was found that the German program had never been close to producing a bomb, while the Americans actually used the bomb to horrific effect in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Einstein changed his mind again. He was full of remorse for his role in advocating for a nuclear bomb, despite having played no hands-on role.
“I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.”
- Bertrand Russell
This does not mean that Einstein was of a fickle mind. Far from it. He had demonstrated superhuman resolve in all his initiatives. It was just that he allowed himself to be influenced by the likelihood of the Nazis building a nuclear bomb, given what was at stake.
“The problem with this world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and the wiser people, so full of doubts.”
- Bertrand Russell
