4 ms·

It seems like a completely unattainable standard to me. Can you give me an example of a situation in which "genuine diversity of intellectual approach" has been

It seems like a completely unattainable standard to me. Can you give me an example of a situation in which "genuine diversity of intellectual approach" has been a net positive for an organization, rather than a divisive detriment to morale? IMO if your organization has a "genuine diversity of intellectual approach" that is truly genuine, then you will soon no longer have an organization — you will have two different organizations, each ideologically homogenous but definitely "genuinely different in intellectual approach" from one another.

montalbano 8y ago
Your response seems to be suggesting that having two different approaches precludes the possibility of two people listening to each other and reaching a sensible agreement?
- radiantswirl 8y ago
  I do not suggest that, because obviously people can listen to each other and reach sensible agreements. But if that's possible then how "genuine" is their intellectual difference in the first place? My question is this: what defines an organization other than a shared intellectual approach? Borders? Dare I say... Walls? I'm just saying that a "shared intellectual approach" is literally the definition of an organization to me, unless you're gonna say that walls/borders/exclusion are what defines an organization. So it makes no sense to insist on NOT sharing an intellectual approach because in that instance you'd quickly have two separate organizations. What I'm really asking for tho is a single example of "genuine intellectual diversity" being beneficial as opposed to merely being divisive and demoralizing. Can you provide an example?
  - montalbano 8y ago
    When I google the definition of 'organization' this is the 1st one that comes up: "an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or government department." People can have different ways of fulfilling the same purpose. As for an example: I'm currently developing a fairly large open-source software package for numerical analysis. I do the majority of the coding but every few weeks I discuss the latest developments with a co-worker and my supervisor. They often disagree with the way I have done certain things (intellectual diversity) but after (sometimes lengthy but productive) discussion we almost always end up with greatly improved software design that we are all happy with. Sometimes they compromise or come round to my way of thinking, sometimes its the other way around.
    - radiantswirl 8y ago
      You sound very logical and well-meaning and seem to be a good person in general, so I have to resist my initial urge to turn this comment thread into a flame war, but: 1.) a shared "purpose" to me is literally the same as a "Shared intellectual approach" -- purpose is a synonym of what I was trying to say. 2.) I strongly disagree that "disagreeing with the way you do certain things within the frames/boundaries of pre-agreed purposes and projects" is what anyone is trying to say when they talk about "intellectual diversity." If your definition of intellectual diversity (just inferring here so lmk if I'm wrong) is "disagreeing about how a job should be done," then literally every company on Earth is diverse by that metric, so its not a particularly useful metric IMO. 3.) IMO when people refer to "intellectual diversity" they are referring to having strongly held and opposing viewpoints about issues that are much larger than "how this job should be done." The viewpoints that qualify as "intellectually diverse" in all discussions of the concept I've read are referring to politics and/or religion. I respect that you have an effective working process with diverse and strong viewpoints about software, but I think that strongly opposing viewpoints about software do not meet the commonly-held criteria for "intellectual diversity." Strongly-held opposing viewpoints about religion and politics do. Compared to politics and religion, It's easy and fun for you and your coworkers to strongly disagree about software development. When you guys strongly disagree about that topic, the final outcome (as you just described) is positive: Everyone learns new things and your product gets better. But it's extremely difficult and potentially way less fun for you and your co-workers to strongly disagree about politics and/or religion while still having a positive final outcome for all involved. My question is this: do you know anyone who can? Because if anyone can provide me with a link to an article/blog post about "intellectual diversity" as it seems to be defined in common parlance -- I.e. "group members holding strongly opposing viewpoints about politics and/or religion" -- let me know because I'd be fascinated to read about it. My curiousity is this: I wonder if intellectually diverse organizations share characteristics and if there was a way to map all organizations and find out which ones are "intellectually diverse" and what commonalities they share. Some part of me wonders if CrossFit and yoga would be the most intellectually diverse but the other part thinks maybe they're self-selecting for some tribal/religious/political qualities that I'm not even aware of. Would be cool to find out :)

montalbano 8y ago

Your response seems to be suggesting that having two different approaches precludes the possibility of two people listening to each other and reaching a sensible agreement?

radiantswirl 8y ago
I do not suggest that, because obviously people can listen to each other and reach sensible agreements. But if that's possible then how "genuine" is their intellectual difference in the first place? My question is this: what defines an organization other than a shared intellectual approach? Borders? Dare I say... Walls? I'm just saying that a "shared intellectual approach" is literally the definition of an organization to me, unless you're gonna say that walls/borders/exclusion are what defines an organization. So it makes no sense to insist on NOT sharing an intellectual approach because in that instance you'd quickly have two separate organizations. What I'm really asking for tho is a single example of "genuine intellectual diversity" being beneficial as opposed to merely being divisive and demoralizing. Can you provide an example?
- montalbano 8y ago
  When I google the definition of 'organization' this is the 1st one that comes up: "an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or government department." People can have different ways of fulfilling the same purpose. As for an example: I'm currently developing a fairly large open-source software package for numerical analysis. I do the majority of the coding but every few weeks I discuss the latest developments with a co-worker and my supervisor. They often disagree with the way I have done certain things (intellectual diversity) but after (sometimes lengthy but productive) discussion we almost always end up with greatly improved software design that we are all happy with. Sometimes they compromise or come round to my way of thinking, sometimes its the other way around.
  - radiantswirl 8y ago
    You sound very logical and well-meaning and seem to be a good person in general, so I have to resist my initial urge to turn this comment thread into a flame war, but: 1.) a shared "purpose" to me is literally the same as a "Shared intellectual approach" -- purpose is a synonym of what I was trying to say. 2.) I strongly disagree that "disagreeing with the way you do certain things within the frames/boundaries of pre-agreed purposes and projects" is what anyone is trying to say when they talk about "intellectual diversity." If your definition of intellectual diversity (just inferring here so lmk if I'm wrong) is "disagreeing about how a job should be done," then literally every company on Earth is diverse by that metric, so its not a particularly useful metric IMO. 3.) IMO when people refer to "intellectual diversity" they are referring to having strongly held and opposing viewpoints about issues that are much larger than "how this job should be done." The viewpoints that qualify as "intellectually diverse" in all discussions of the concept I've read are referring to politics and/or religion. I respect that you have an effective working process with diverse and strong viewpoints about software, but I think that strongly opposing viewpoints about software do not meet the commonly-held criteria for "intellectual diversity." Strongly-held opposing viewpoints about religion and politics do. Compared to politics and religion, It's easy and fun for you and your coworkers to strongly disagree about software development. When you guys strongly disagree about that topic, the final outcome (as you just described) is positive: Everyone learns new things and your product gets better. But it's extremely difficult and potentially way less fun for you and your co-workers to strongly disagree about politics and/or religion while still having a positive final outcome for all involved. My question is this: do you know anyone who can? Because if anyone can provide me with a link to an article/blog post about "intellectual diversity" as it seems to be defined in common parlance -- I.e. "group members holding strongly opposing viewpoints about politics and/or religion" -- let me know because I'd be fascinated to read about it. My curiousity is this: I wonder if intellectually diverse organizations share characteristics and if there was a way to map all organizations and find out which ones are "intellectually diverse" and what commonalities they share. Some part of me wonders if CrossFit and yoga would be the most intellectually diverse but the other part thinks maybe they're self-selecting for some tribal/religious/political qualities that I'm not even aware of. Would be cool to find out :)