57.
The value of difference
Differences in knowledge, perception, emotion,
feeling, views, ethics and culture, which I have called cognitive distance in
my scientific work, are bothersome, because they are a source of
misunderstanding and prejudice and make collaboration difficult. On the other
hand they are also interesting as a source of learning. The challenge is to
find partners with optimal difference: sufficient to be able to tell or show
each other something new but not so much that one cannot understand each other
or cannot deal with each other.
Empirical (econometric) research (that I did
with associates) shows that such optimal difference yields economic advantage
through improved performance in innovation. The ability to work together with
people who think differently yields economic advantage. That yields hope for
diversity and tolerance, because if those were economically disadvantageous
they would hardly be viable.
The ability to collaborate has a
cognitive component in the narrow meaning of intellectual understanding (absorptive
capacity), and a cognitive component in the wider, also affective sense of
ethics and morality, of views on good and bad. One should not only understand
each other but also have empathy for each other.
The complement of absorptive
capacity, the other side of the coin, is the ability to help others understand
one, with the use of illuminating examples or metaphors that help them to
absorb one’s thought into theirs. One can develop both types of ability, for
absorption and for communication, by accumulating knowledge and experience in
collaboration with people who think differently. This enables relationships at
larger cognitive distance, offering a higher degree of learning and innovation.
The positive effect of that has also been demonstrated in empirical research.
One can
also make use of go-betweens that help to bridge cognitive distance, preventing
or eliminating misunderstandings, clarify views and habits, and take away
suspicion.
To the
extent that relationships last longer and are exclusive, i.e. closed off from
relationships with other, more distant parties, cognitive distance will in due
course decline. One becomes so familiar with each other that one begins to see,
think and act in the same way. That is convenient, in fast and easy agreement,
but it can also yield intellectual incest and lack of learning and renewal.
However, long lasting relationships can retain their cognitive vitality when
parties also maintain relationships with different others that can feed the
relationship with fresh ideas and perspectives.
In
communities, the advantage of strong local connections is that they enable
close cooperation, with social control, reputation effects and mutual trust,
but they can also lead to rigidity and stagnation. Isolated, cohesive groups
are in danger of losing the impulse of novel ideas and experience, and to
prevent that from happening bridges should be built to connect with other
groups. And for that one must overcome the inclination to distrust outsiders.
This
analysis serves to give more substance to the claim from evolutionary theory of
the economy (see item 30) that variety matters for innovation. Variety is not
only needed for selection to work, but also to generate novelty and produce new
variety.
No comments:
Post a Comment