18 – An Overdue Explanation

An Overdue Explanation

to an Apparent Contradiction

Readers who have followed the ideas explored in the writings on this blog from the beginning may perhaps feel that I have left them with an unexplained contradiction regarding the suggested solution to the central problem explored in the writings.   

The problem was identified as arising from the limitations of the constrained information bases that we are able to acquire during our lifetimes on which we depend for understanding the world around us (see also “basic argument” in paragraph four of article #17 (2018)) and the resulting damage to humanity in each and every aspect of our existence and endeavours, and on a global scale. 

In the earlier writings, the (partial) solution suggested was the incorporation of communication and related social psychology in education curriculums, while in later writings – beginning from article #13 (2015) – the emphasis was on the modification of the world’s basic education system along the lines suggested in that article.  Thus while both call for the modification of educational systems, there seems to be a contradiction. 

But in reality, there is no contradiction – and the discrepancy is only an apparent one, which arose from a missing link … an explanation; for both components are essential to the solution.  Thus providing such an explanation, and elaborations thereof, is the purpose of this piece. 

While communication and social psychology are in fact the essence of the solution, until I had immersed in the details of related issues in article #13, I had not been explicitly aware of the enormous psychological barriers that will block messages from being fully understood, and thus that I have to first resolve this problem in order to make headway with communication and social psychology.**  This in turn led to the suggestions of article #13 – although this was within the broader framework of the world basic education system.  Until then, I had dwelt on what could be called the technical side of the process arising from the lack of a common language that can bridge the diversity of the topics of complex dialogue – this aspect of the process has been identified as "technical," given its probabilistic, non-psychological nature .  These two aspects are intrinsically linked/entwined – one cannot be isolated from the other in a meaningful way.  From here arises the necessity for eliminating both these barriers to effective communication and interaction before we could hope messages of complex dialogue to be properly understood.***  (Readers who had difficulty in grasping the message of these writings will find this last footnote most helpful.) 

Central to this process is to realize that in our efforts to communicate with fellow humans, we don’t have the awareness of the existence of these barriers to effective conveyance of thoughts, and also that we lack the ability to do anything about it, even if we may have vague “feelings” that things are not working.  Modifications to the world’s basic education system along the lines suggested in the account under “Understanding the Social World …” in article #13 aim at rectifying, primarily, the awareness side of the problem, particularly by instilling relevant attitudes to enhance the process – see also the second paragraph of the second part of article #15.  (Effective communication/interaction calls for a host of the right kind of attitudes & behaviours.)  The incorporation of both communication and related social psychology at relevant levels aims at rectifying, primarily, the ability side of the problem, by providing the necessary theory and related practice that will empower us to deal with interactions as effectively as possible. 

Taken together, improving these two aspects will work to smoothen communication/interaction processes – by enabling participants to become aware of the serious gaps that exist in their understanding of others, leading to enhancing open-minded and sincere inquiry about meanings involved rather than shouting matches, in turn leading to gradual reduction of the gaps in meaning, and so on.  I am not claiming that the process will lead to the creation of a common language straightaway, but the process of reaching that goal will become very much smoother.  Naturally, the process will be time-consuming, but we can expect that duration to shrink gradually when people begin to interact more frequently and trust gains a higher status.  And while such a process would be unimaginable with current attitudes and levels of trust, once the two aspects of our concern have been addressed, the process will progressively become common-place and thus second-nature.  (It is towards enhancing this outcome that the creation of an appropriate mindset, and behaviour arising from it, become so critically important – the aim of the suggestions of the account under “Understanding the Social World” in article #13 – for it is through our interactions with others with the right attitudes that we can become aware of our shortcomings, and thus motivate ourselves to improve; the process will become especially taxing when the participants are from diverse backgrounds.)  Luckily, we do find such processes among close-knit groups and also among the members of some groups in the same profession, but sadly we find them only rarely.  The suggestions proposed will help make such processes common-place rather than rare; the norm rather than the exception – particularly among groups composed of members from different specializations, the rarity of the process in which is most disturbing, given today’s fast pace of change and thus where accord is most sorely and urgently required.  The process will also spill into interactions of family members and community groups, and will expand to national and international levels. 

It should be emphasized that the two aspects of our concern are two sides of the same coin and, as such, that improving one side cannot be effective without improving the other; neither side can stand alone.  It should also be emphasized, as had been in the section of article #13 referred to above, that appropriate attitudes do not get instilled spontaneously and on their own; thinking that they could is akin to requiring humanity to reinvent the wheel and foregoing all benefits accumulated through work based on the initial invention – besides, instilling the right attitudes itself is hard work!  (Again, refer to the second paragraph of the second part of article #15 (2017).) 

The proposed measures for improving the education system will help propel the two aspects (our awareness of the existence of intangible barriers to effective communication/interaction and our ability to neutralize their destructive effects) to vastly superior states and thus help improve the quality of our thinking enormously, in turn helping to achieve unimaginable improvements in the quality of our communication/interaction.  This will bring about far-reaching advancements in every facet of our lives, including our wellbeing and happiness.  (This is also the end-state that the accounts of article #15 aim at regarding the elimination of barriers that arise from our natural disposition, or human nature, and the exacerbation of outcomes of that disposition arising from the specialization requisite of human advancement – see the last two paragraphs of that article.) 

Apart from the immeasurable benefits the program will bring to humanity over time, it will also play a vital role in helping us choose the right path in the uncertain times we are living in today, when unprecedented and accelerating change is occurring around us and when our opinions are polarized in virtually every field regarding the policies we should adopt towards our perplexing and critical problems, many of which threaten humanity’s long-term survival itself.  And clarity of the choices over such issues will translate into a much better future with much less conflict, and thus a more peaceful world – even much less, or no, radicalism/ fanaticism/ fundamentalism, as pointed out in the first boxed piece at the end of article #1, or “Introduction.”   

____________________________________________________________________________________

**  This is the essence of the clarity about the nature of our problem mentioned in the parenthesized last sentence of article #17, and was in large part an outcome of reflection on the barriers to the ability of the Maldives government to formulate viable policy.  This reflection also reinforced my earlier intuitive conclusion that the ramifications of the problem explored in these writings are the culprits (see first paragraph of the piece “About Me” at the end of the blog) both directly at the decision-making levels and indirectly as relates to hidden factors underlying the less than desirable attitudes and behaviours of the ranking officers of the establishment – the impacts and severity of which would vary depending on the circumstances.  But this scenario is actually not specific to the Maldives – as can be inferred from the first part of article #15, the US is also in the same boat (one might also want to contemplate on its current socio-political condition) and by extension/implication, so are all other nations.  Thus if we desire to improve the human condition, this is the one area the betterment of which would make the most decisive and profound impact. 

***  A little reflection would also reveal that our natural disposition is not very well-geared for understanding the messages coming from the outside.  This arises from some simple facts – that information in our brains is the basis for understanding the outside world and that meaning of information from other people’s messages are not similar to our own (see account under the subtitle “Making Sense of the World” in article #13), and as a result, that we have to “interpret” outside messages into our own “language” before we can make sense of them.  This would cause varying degrees of distortion depending on the nature of those messages, our attitude/mindset, and so on.  Outside messages are also likely to induce an inner tendency for tuning them out since they would require effort to process them (the brain has only 2% of the total body weight, but accounts for a whopping 25% of its glucose consumption), and this tendency may take volatile forms if those messages contradict our core databases – our deep-held beliefs (outcomes of this latter are reflected in the difficulties we have in dealing with "outer" groups or in thinking objectively about ideas/concepts we are unfamiliar with, and also why we feel so comfortable among "birds of a feather").  The direct result of all this is a diminished capacity for people to get across to, or communicate with, fellow humans – and this process will become progressively worse the more specialized people become, due to both the shrinking common ground and the increasing psychological barriers arising thereof.  Thus much hard work is called for before we can fully/correctly understand messages coming from the outside.  Ironically, we are not even aware of these realities, and that our very existence, let alone wellbeing, depends on our ability to accurately process outside messages.  This state of affairs should not be surprising, however, given that those processes operate largely below our conscious radar.  It is clear that we need to have a better grasp of our communication process that is currently so ineffective and inefficient, and whence so detrimental to our wellbeing.  (This is the crux of the problem deliberated variously in the writings on this blog.)  Naturally, we cannot have complete control over the process, but we can overcome many obstacles that currently stand in our way.  (This is part of the reason for the suggested solution being described as “partial”; there are also other identifiable obstacles, and likely many unidentified ones – our problem is highly complex!)  Towards this end, the obvious first step is to become aware of the nature of the situation, and the logical next step is to build-up our ability to deal with that reality effectively/efficiently.  To be sure, this is easier said than done, but it can be done – only if those responsible for the world basic education policy bothered to come to grips with the realities of the situation and mustered the necessary courage to overcome their inertia.  [See footnote #2 of "1 – Introduction" (2012) for both the logic and dynamics of the suggested course of action for achieving our goals; given the extended reach of relevant publications, however, it would be more effective to propagate the message via articles in such publications (the mere mentioning of it and urging people to read blog articles and citing its address, will do) rather than relying on dialogue among individuals as I had initially suggested – to get our program implemented, it is vital/critical to propagate the message widely; in fact, given the dynamics of the process as described in the piece referred to, it will be virtually impossible to achieve our goals without wide propagation of the message, as there is no particular person or government that is responsible for taking decisions about world basic education.]  

17 – Business World Insight

An Insight from the Business World

  

The following is a self-explanatory comment I sent recently (without the footnotes) to the moderator of  a Harvard Business Review webinar.  The purpose of publishing it is to underscore the fact that our problem (the topic of this blog) does not spare any human activity without manifesting itself in it and thus that any effective solution has to cut across all human activities, including businesses.  But as explained in footnote two below, the starting point of an effective solution must be the world basic education system.  (Reaching this inference was helped by the experience I gained by having been engaged in development-related endeavours for the better part of the past 40 years.)  (See footnote one of article #13 for the underlying reason for my reference to a “world” basic education system.)   

There is much talk about the “silo effect,” but I’m not sure if the pundits really understand its nature.**  

In my opinion, much of the factors underlying the formation and endurance of silos are the same as those dealt with on my blog www.rifatafeef.blogspot.com – the silo phenomenon is only an outcome and a subset of the broader problem of barriers to effective communication in the highly specialized and thus complex world in which we live and function today.  

The basic argument is as follows: i) humans make sense of the world based on the information they have in their brains; ii) on average, those knowledgeable of affairs in a given area would not know much about other areas; and as a result, iii) those in any given area would be hesitant to venture into other areas and thus would tend to cocoon themselves – people usually don’t venture into areas they don’t know about; they would also be apprehensive of being ridiculed for their shortcomings.  Naturally, rivalries, perceived self-interests, misperceptions, etc. etc., would also play a role in the silo effect, but their negative impacts would likely be minor compared to those arising from the basic problem of the lack of common ground and the resulting lack of meaningful communication and interaction. 

Given its importance, it would be worthwhile to systematically investigate the phenomenon instead of resorting to clichés to describe it and stop there.  I suggest that you share these thoughts with your editor colleagues and perhaps with HBS faculty – in addition to competent social psychologists who can enlighten on the topic;***  in fact, the essence of the problem is one of social psychology while its outcomes are manifest in the practical realms of human endeavour, like organizational settings. 

___________________________________________________________________________________

PS:  You might want to refer to the June 13th webinar in which mention was made of the strategy of the Development Bank of Singapore to provide digital backgrounds to all its staff.  The measure was aimed at improving the bank’s functioning.  Although I don’t recall “silos” being mentioned in the webinar, that strategy would contribute to reduce, although not entirely eliminate, the silo effect – since there are other factors as well that contribute to the phenomenon; this is not to mention that a "digital background" is only one part of a common language, although a significant part nevertheless. (Any strategy for improving the functioning of an organization in a complex setting has to take measures to reduce the silo effect.) 

PPS:  Of the 16 pieces on the blog, I suggest you focus initially on articles #13 (World Basic Education System); #15 (in part an email to Professor Jared Diamond); and #16 (comment on NatGeo program Year Million).  [You’ll find more on my background at the end of the blog, under “About Me.”] 

____________________________________________________________________________________

**  The “silo effect” is the tendency for departments of an organization to work in isolation and not actively cooperate with other departments – other than at a level they perceive to be minimally sufficient.  Growth and advancement will be hard to come by in such an organization, and the resulting cumulative impacts will ultimately lead to its demise, in the same way that any entity that cannot cope with the stresses it faces will cease to exist; see the first footnote of article #16 – corporations go bankrupt; species go extinct; nations disintegrate or are taken over by others stronger than them; and governments are kicked out of office or overthrown by dictatorships: different labels but equivalent outcomes.  And our problem cuts across all levels of human activities – individual, family, local community, national, international. 

***  Social psychologists, however, can only illuminate on the nature of the problem; they can’t solve it.  Although the silo effect arises from human behaviour, it is at the early stages of a child’s life that behaviours of our concern begin to take root (see paragraph two of the second part of article #15) and it is only a program as that outlined in article #13 that can effectively address the problem.  The program also focuses on people and not on settings; this is important, given that people carry around their core traits to multiple settings, and also since the ways in which they manifest can vary from setting to setting – for example, the same trait may give rise to different behaviours at home and at work.  Given these realities, it would be clear that solving our problem is beyond business organizations, although they could try to understand its nature to improve their functioning.  But articles #13 and #15 make it clear that world basic education can effectively address our problem – to the extent to which it is practically possible.  Meanwhile, business organizations can help: i) by raising awareness of the criticality of the problem; ii) by facilitating funding for getting the program implemented (see the second part of article #9 for the tentative process suggested); and, most importantly, iii) by urging those responsible for the formulation of world basic education policy to face their moral responsibility, since it is they who hold the key to the solution to our vexing problem and since the ramifications of the problem are chocking humanity while nothing is being done to rectify it – see the first part of article #15, and the above, for some aspects of this.  (See also footnote two of article #1, or “Introduction,” for the strategy envisioned for implementing the program – after it was published in March 2012, however, the nature of our problem had become clearer and more delineated, but this would not affect the suggested strategy, given that the essential concepts remain the same and it was only some expressions describing them that had changed.)