Reply to comment

Picking up on the topic of maintaining neurodiversity in socially engineered populations (i.e., academic or business communities), several people have brought up intellectual diversity as a defining criterion of determining who can “make the cut.” Ian did a good job of explaining the limits of diversity by reframing the NASA problem in terms of “degrees of diversity.” As we mentioned in class, every single person is unique and different from the next, in terms of both physical and experiential components. In trying to build a select group, however, some differences are in fact more important than others. To productively contribute to building a rocket, for example, the scientists selected had to have the necessary training and experience to effectively communicate with one another to generate new ideas. Thus, I believe that Kara’s point about communication being a basic tenet of productivity is valid.

As Liz B. points out, colleges like Bryn Mawr and Haverford also selectively limit diversity in several areas. Thinking back to our applications, it was obvious that benchmarks of general and acquired intelligence were important (think SAT I and SAT II subject tests), as was our demonstrated ability to communicate effectively and creatively with others (as shown by our personal statements and hypothetical “what would you do for a day with five dollars” essays). These institutions strive for diversity in many ways including race, religious background, socioeconomic status, etc. in order to enrich students’ social experiences and make them more well-rounded. I agree on a fundamental with this approach in terms of creating a more productive environment.

That being said, however, we must recognize that as “social groups,” businesses and colleges are competitive. Kara B. raises the question, “where [do] we set the limit on diversity?” In the case of schools like Haverford or Bryn Mawr, members must demonstrate proficiency in specific areas (in this case, in areas of intelligence and advanced thinking abilities). Furthermore, Kara B. points out that communication is a fundamental part of a productive community. Using biology as an analogy, organisms have evolved various ways to carry out the processes necessary for life. While these strategies differ among specific organisms, they all ultimately complete these basic life tasks. I would argue that the same process is necessary for the survival of social institutions. It does not matter that a student has learned different ways to solve problems, as long as she is able to ultimately understand and solve the problems presented. Thus, a student who is not able to understand and apply the knowledge she has learned will not survive in the social institution.

The issue thus moves from “what limits on diversity” to “measures of diversity.” Standardized tests and job interviews are ways in which gatekeepers to competitive social groups make decisions about admitting new members. These benchmarks are often static, however, and fail to reflect an individual who has developed alternative ways to meet the basic criteria of these institutions. As future members of social collectives, it would be in all of our best interest to develop more dynamic ways to identify diversity while simultaneously maintaining the basic standards necessary for the survival of the social organism.

~Alex Tuttle

Haverford '08