Well, I was going to read three chapters, but I had so much to say about chapter six that I decided to stop there. In chapter five, Johansson (2006) describes the process of randomly combining concepts, using the example of Richard Garfield, who invented the card game Magic: the Gathering. He notes that combining concepts randomly is the basis of innovation. In chapter six, he outlines three ways to increase this tendency to find useful combinations of concepts. He suggests we diversify occupations, diversify our interactions with people, and look for intersections.
I have a complex and somewhat negative reaction to Johansson's ideas. I think that reaction is already clear in other posts that I've written about this book. It is not that his ideas are bad, uninteresting, or useless. Its more of a feeling of "been there, done that, and it's not as easy as you are suggesting!"
Here's a question. Our program embraces positive psychology and the strengths perspective that Clifton came up with. According to that perspective, Johansson is approaching this idea all wrong. He is writing a how-to book for uncreative people. He is saying, "You are not very creative now, but if you follow these steps, you will improve." If we agree with Clifton, this is the classic example of trying to teach a rabbit how to swim (Clifton & Nelson, 1992). On the other hand, I suppose Johansson's argument is that we need more creative people. So which is it? Are we building towards our strengths or trying to get people to contort into attitudes and concepts that are not natural to them? Or maybe Johansson really hasn't thought that through at all. Maybe he just wrote this book to profit off of people's tendency to admire and strive to be what they are not.
One of the reasons that I have this reaction to the book is that I am actually the native fish (to extend the teaching-the-rabbit-how-to-swim analogy). I don't need Johansson's advice. He is describing my natural tendencies. As a naturally creative person who is constantly trying to expand my horizons and find intersection (if that is what one wants to call them), I have not found the challenge to be actually doing it. I have found the challenge to be other people really understanding themselves or their reaction to my personality and gifts.
Take Johansson's idea about diversifying our interactions with people. He says: Humans have a tendency to stick with people who are like themselves and avoid those who are different. Psychologists have a name for this tendency. They call it the similar-attraction effect. I don't really seem to have this tendency. I love meeting people who are different from myself. I have across-the-room envy. I want to know what those people over there are talking about. The more different they are, the more fascinating I find them. This ends up being a somewhat self-destructive tendency because other people don't share it. They are usually pretty content not to know me, and it can be a little intimidating to try to break those social barriers. One of the lovely things about living overseas is that you mostly meet the people from other cultures who share a similar tendency. They wouldn't hang out with me if they didn't like hanging out with people who are different in general. They self-identify.
My native crowd, the one that I love the best, is the one that includes my Russian friend, my Mexican friend, my Indian friend, my Filipino friend, my Chinese friend, and my Taiwanese-extraction Californian friend. When we get together, we have so much fun and the conversation is so interesting, but it should be noted and even emphasized that none of these friends are typical of their native land. We are all freaks. Why would we be hanging out together in a residence hall for foreigners in China if we weren't? My Russian friend studied in Lithuania and is going to get her Ph.D. in the U.S. She says that her own countrymen tend to see her as a traitor because of her close ties with the west. My Mexican friend spent eight years in the U.S. before deciding to come and live with a bunch of American teachers in China. My Chinese friend chose to hang out with our motley crowd instead of her own people and is now studying for her MBA in California. None of us fit in in our native setting and it is very unlikely that we will ever be completely happy if we try to go back to that place. I am getting a Ph.D. in my native country, and I know I don't fit in at all.
So I already asked this question, but if Johansson cares so much about fostering creativity and innovation, why is he trying to make more creative people? Why isn't he instead writing a book about fostering the ones who already exist? We don't have a good deal generally. We are forced to specialize and there is not a general value for our differentness. Johansson notes:
Most people, for instance, think they are pretty decent at interviewing candidates for jobs. Some people even claim that they can tell as soon as a candidate walks through the door whether the person is suitable. “When you’ve been in the game as long as I have you can spot them straight away,” they say. Such talk flies in the face of hundreds of studies that have been conducted since the beginning of the century. These studies show conclusively that the unstructured interview has virtually no validity as a selection tool. Such an interview does not give us enough information to understand the candidate’s qualifications. There are many reasons for this problem. People tend to search for commonalities in others. Both the person conducting the interview and the interviewee try to find common ground quickly; if they do, they get a good feeling about each other. The result is that people tend to recruit candidates just like themselves. We do this because we are affected by subjective biases, and in particular by the similar-attraction effect. (Kindle Locations 1258-1266).
He says, "Go out and diversify your experiences" and then he says, "People generally only hire people who are like them." Does he notice the barrier there? I have experienced it. When I was young, I just wanted to explore the world. I wanted to be like the author of Dune, Frank Herbert, who went everywhere and did everything, but I wasn't good at breaking down those barriers, and I didn't really know where to start. I was always too different to get hired. That is the book that needs to be written--a book that helps creative people know where to start and how to connect. For me, ultimately, the answer was to sign up for the Peace Corps. They're not that picky and it really is an amazingly broadening experience, but I tried so many other things first, and there were so many doors closed in my face. Alternatively, there should be a book for non-creative people that helps them to recognize that other people have a gift that they don't have and that they should value and help to promote those people in the work they are trying to do--even if it isn't really obvious how it's going to work out. Maybe Johansson begins that conversation, but most of his focus is on reinventing the way people approach life.
For my student success comp, I suggested that the FHSU administration create a first-year seminar that would be team-taught by a Chinese and American faculty member. For me, this team teaching process would create the kind of dynamism that Johansson is talking about. I just get so excited thinking about the revolutions in pedagogy that might come from such partnerships, and I think it would help our program grow and become more competitive also, but it is really hard for me to communicate that vision to others because creativity and the value of diversity is so little understood--despite the generally mouthed allegiance to "diversity." I don't think the administration here would be willing to face the expense and complaints that such a decision would create (there is always resistance to collaborative work--or change for that matter), so there is an opportunity wasted. I really don't know how to change that. I guess I will hold my idea in reserve and wait for that moment when it might be received.
Social Justice and Diversity
Johansson says, "People tend to stick to their own disciplines and domains. They stick to their own ethnicities and cultures....Why are we so hesitant about working in diverse teams? The reason is at least in part a function of human nature. Humans have a tendency to stick with people who are like themselves and avoid those who are different. Psychologists have a name for this tendency. They call it the similar-attraction effect." (Locations 1243-1245).
I tried to point this phenomenon out in our Social Justice and Diversity class. I tried to make the point that white people are not intrinsically racist in a special way in which no other race is capable (see Coates, 2015, Between the World and Me for an explanation of that concept). I don't really remember what response I got--maybe it was just blank stares.
My point was that white people are like all people in that they trust other white people more than people who are different--because all people are that way--or at least the vast majority. This tendency to trust the in-group creates racism and social injustice. It is the unusual amount of power that white people have as a group that creates the abuses. (Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.) Any race would create the same abuses in the same situation and perhaps even worse ones, depending on how one looks at it. I'm not saying that to minimize or excuse the problem--simply to understand it and put it in perspective. We can't really solve a problem we don't understand.
Unfortunately, from my experience, that doesn't seem to be an idea that social justice advocates want to engage. Maybe they are afraid that it will let the white people off the hook and responsibility for racism will shift and become ambiguous instead of resting so certainly (and comfortably) on white people.
No comments:
Post a Comment