82,927
edits
Template:Heterogeneity as a bad thing: Difference between revisions
Template:Heterogeneity as a bad thing (view source)
Revision as of 10:02, 4 January 2023
, 4 January 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Thought leaders — the same ones who, with the hive mind, fetishise diversity — may declare that ''heterogeneity'' — contrarianism to you, dear reader — is...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Thought leader]]s — the same ones who, with the [[hive mind]], fetishise diversity — may declare that ''[[heterogeneity]]'' — contrarianism to you, dear reader — is a ''bad'' thing.<ref>But here is an irony for you: the Oxford dictionary defines [[heterogeneity]] as: “the quality or state of being [[diverse]] in character or content”.</ref> | [[Thought leader]]s — the same ones who, with the [[hive mind]], fetishise diversity — may declare that ''[[heterogeneity]]'' — contrarianism to you, dear reader — is a ''bad'' thing.<ref>But here is an irony for you: the Oxford dictionary defines [[heterogeneity]] as: “the quality or state of being [[diverse]] in character or content”.</ref> | ||
“''Homo''geneity is important to bind your people to a common purpose and vision,” they will say. “ | “''Homo''geneity is important to bind your people to a common purpose and vision,” they will say. “''Hetero''geneity can weaken and undermine that sacred, fragile flame.” | ||
We [[Jolly Contrarian|happy heterogeneticists]] would beg to differ. The problem, in our darkened times, is not that there is too much diversity of thought, but not enough. The diversity we do have — that we fetishise — is a superficial, plastic, ''optical'' diversity. Under its cover, our hive mind stampedes after shiny but basically stupid ideas. We jump on bandwagons: [[Cryptocurrency|cryptocurrencies]], [[non-fungible token]]s, [[AI]], [[ESG]] and [[critical theory]], some of which are engineered — ironically enough — to ''quash'' contrary voices. | We [[Jolly Contrarian|happy heterogeneticists]] would beg to differ. The problem, in our darkened times, is not that there is too much diversity of thought, but not enough. The diversity we do have — that we fetishise — is a superficial, plastic, ''optical'' diversity. Under its cover, our hive mind stampedes after shiny but basically stupid ideas. We jump on bandwagons: [[Cryptocurrency|cryptocurrencies]], [[non-fungible token]]s, [[AI]], [[ESG]] and [[critical theory]], some of which are engineered — ironically enough — to ''quash'' contrary voices. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
In a [[wicked]] environment there are very few of these, and in a “tame” — closed, bounded, fully understood — environment they are easy to dismiss: in a game of football, the undoubtedly heterogeneous idea to pick up the ball is stupid and no-one will do it. ''But'' even there … well, just ask William Webb Ellis whether it was a stupid idea to pick up the ball and run with it.<ref>Understood this is, largely, apocryphal.</ref> | In a [[wicked]] environment there are very few of these, and in a “tame” — closed, bounded, fully understood — environment they are easy to dismiss: in a game of football, the undoubtedly heterogeneous idea to pick up the ball is stupid and no-one will do it. ''But'' even there … well, just ask William Webb Ellis whether it was a stupid idea to pick up the ball and run with it.<ref>Understood this is, largely, apocryphal.</ref> | ||
Situations where the consensus view is so unarguably right that there’s no scope to challenge it are as good as non-existent in commerce. Many of the our great crises of the past have come out of apparently sensible homogeneous consensus, and in the face of a small, vocal, but ignored | Situations where the consensus view is so unarguably right that there’s no scope to challenge it are as good as non-existent in commerce. Many of the our great crises of the past have come out of apparently sensible homogeneous consensus, and in the face of a small, vocal, but ignored heterogenous dissent. [[LIBOR]]. The [[global financial crisis]]. [[Madoff]]. [[Enron]]. [[FTX]]. | ||
We operate in a [[Zero-sum game|non zero-sum]], not-bounded, incomplete, ambiguous environment it is hard to see how having ''some'' level of dissent doesn’t put you in a better place. | We operate in a [[Zero-sum game|non zero-sum]], not-bounded, incomplete, ambiguous environment it is hard to see how having ''some'' level of dissent doesn’t put you in a better place. | ||