Tag: society

Why Diversity is Important

Diversity has been a recurring theme this semester. It started with the diversity conference our middle schoolers attended earlier this year, which, unfortunately, I’m not sure they got a lot out of. As a result, I’ve been making a little bit of a point to bring up the subject when it intersects with our work. This week were were talking about evolution and natural selection, as was able to talk about the practical advantages of both genetic and social diversity.

When the environment changes, species don’t usually have time to adapt. Instead, individuals who already have the genes for beneficial existing traits — traits that work well under the new conditions, like the ability to survive warming climates — will tend to breed more, and over the generations, more and more of the population will have the advantageous trait.

Therefore, to ensure the continuation of the species, we’ll want to have the maximum amount of genetic diversity.

Then I tacked. I asked if anyone was not interested in seeing the continuity of humanity, and the usual wags piped up to say that they could take homo sapiens or leave it. So I showed them the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement website. VHEMT advocates that people voluntarily stop having kids so that humanity eventually will become extinct, restoring the Earth’s environment to a healthy state. Their motto is, “May we live long and die out.”

The class was pretty uniformly aghast.

I particularly like the VHEMT website because it’s really hard to tell if they’re serious or not; which drove my students a little bit crazy. And I eventually got the key question I was angling for, “How could anyone want humans to go extinct?”

My response was, for them at least, quite unsatisfactory, because I chose to answer with a different question: “Do you think that diversity of thought is good?”

For some, their answer was no. However, I then reminded them of that first amendment to the U.S. constitution has to do with freedom of expression, which does seem to suggest that the founders thought diversity of ideas was a good thing. Just like species, countries with greater diversity of ideas are more likely to be able to adapt to changing conditions and succeed.

The application of evolutionary theory to social situations has, historically, been fraught with abuse (see the eugenics movement in particular). I also did not have time to bring the conversation back to why we might want to protect biodiversity. However, this particular lesson gets the point across that diversity has some important practical benefits that might not always be obvious.

Notes

An interview with VHMET on the Discovery Channel:

The Myth of Adolescent Angst

Fortunately, we also know from extensive research both in the U.S. and elsewhere that when we treat teens like adults, they almost immediately rise to the challenge.
— Epstein (2007): The Myth of the Teen Brain in Scientific American Mind.

Is the angst and turmoil we usually associate with adolescence just a result of the way human brains develop, or is it something learned, and depends on the society that shapes our kids? Robert Epstein argues (Epstein, 2007) it’s the latter not the former, and, despite a lot of other research to the contrary, he may have a point. He believes the main problem is that western teens are treated more as children than young-adults, and they spend most of their time socializing with other teens and not with adults.

Cerebral Lobes
Cerebral lobes (image via Wikimeida Commons).

Alex Chediak posts a good overview of the work.

We’ve seen that one of the major problems with most psychological studies is that they only focus on WEIRD people, typically represented by college students in the Western world, who are the easiest people for university researchers to study. Using any such subset must, necessarily, be unrepresentative of the full range of human behavior. Furthermore, since society influences brain development, even studies that focus less on behavior and more on neurological imaging are likely to be affected by the some bias.

A similar argument can be made for studies of adolescence since most studies of adolescence focus on western teens. As a result, separating behavior learned via social interaction, from the regularly progression of genetically programmed brain development is going to be difficult.

Much of Epstein’s argument is based on the book Adolescence: An Anthropological Inquiry (Schlegel and Barry, 1991), which compared teens in almost 200 pre-industrial societies. Epstein summarizes this and other work to indicate that in pre-industrial cultures:

  • about 60 percent had no word for “adolescence,”
  • teens spent almost all their time with adults,
  • teens showed almost no signs of psychopathology
  • antisocial behavior in young males was completely absent in more than half these cultures and extremely mild in cultures in which it did occur.
  • teen trouble begins to appear in other cultures soon after the intro- duction of certain Western influences, especially Western-style schooling, television programs and movies.

— Epstein (2007) (my bulleting): The Myth of the Teen Brain in Scientific American Mind.

As a result, teens:

learn virtually everything they know from one another rather than from the people they are about to become. Isolated from adults and wrongly treated like children, it is no wonder that some teens behave, by adult standards, recklessly or irresponsibly.

Apprenticeship (image by Emile Adan via Wikimedia Commons).

Epstein’s antidote is to treat teens like adults. I agree. However, it’s essential to keep in mind what type of adults we want them to be: responsible and logical, while retaining the creativity we usually associate with childhood. This is something that typifies the ideal of Montessori education, all the way from early-childhood up.

Facing Facebook

Rheingold’s social-media class did an exercise that changed the way many of his students interact with Facebook.

Each student projected their profile on a screen with everything but their name or picture. Everyone had to guess whose profile was on display. Estela Marie Go, an undergraduate student in the class, says she suddenly realized that she didn’t like the way Facebook forced her to define herself with a list of interests.
—Sydell (2010) on NPR.

A number of my students have Facebook accounts. I have one too, but I think I’ve used it twice in the year that I’ve had it. Part of my problem is about how it accelerates the loss of privacy inherent to living on the net. However, I also have a very big problem with its insular nature, the fact that it is its own walled-off section of the internet. The two times I’ve used it have been when people I knew from inside the wall wanted to share something and I could not get to it from outside. I also find it difficult to give so much personal information, about my history and my habits to a single company.

So I’m always enthused to see other people coming to the same conclusions, like those in NPR’s recently broadcast story about how, “New Networks Target Discomfort With Facebook.”

The fundamental “Need” for Electronics

Renaissance Faire Elf Using Cell Phone. (Image by Zoomar). The caption for the photo is priceless, 'I just want to state for the record that a cell phone at a Renaissance Faire is anachronistic and wrong. Being an Elf, however is 100% historically accurate.'

What are the fundamental needs of life (as we know it)? Energy, water, living space and stable internal conditions. These are physical needs of all organisms from bacteria to plants to mammals. Humans share these needs too, and this was one of the things we talked about in natural world this cycle. However, in social world studies we also discussed how people have psychological needs that, as far as we can tell, are different from those of single celled organisms: celebration, community, entertainment, and, among other things, what my students call understanding, which includes religion and spirituality.

My technophilic students also interjected that we, humans, have a need for electronics.

Electronics? My first thought was that they were being facetious, and they may have well been. But as we talked about all the other needs during our synthesis discussion last Friday I began to realize just how fundamental electronics have become to life as we know it.

Electronics are tied into the way we meet those fundamental physical needs. Organizing shipping and distribution of food requires complex scheduling software and databases. The operation of the pumps that extract our groundwater and deliver it to our houses are controlled by microcontroller. With MRI’s and computerized records our health and well-being (maintaining those stable internal conditions) are increasingly influenced by electronic technology. And in our homes, the elegant knobs and dials of thermostats on furnaces and ovens are giving way to smooth if inelegant digital displays.

Even our understanding of the world we live in, of the effects of global climate change for example, is based predominantly on sophisticated computer models and confirmed by computerized satellite systems (see NCAR for example).

So have we reached the point where electronics are a fundamental need of society, and how long will it be before we as individuals become inseparable from our electronics devices? Are we all cyborgs now? And the ultimate question: Should we be teaching more electronics in middle school?

A sense of justice as a key to moral development

On an personal level, I’ve always felt that the sense of justice shapes the way people react to the world on a fundamental level. In the language of Montessori, justice is a fundamental need of humanity. As we mature we begin to see justice from different perspectives, and after going over the history of human rights, I wonder if this applies to societies as well.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s famous theory about the stages of moral development center around the idea of how people see and react to justice and injustice. His first level (pre-conventional) is based on how moral actions affect oneself; if I do this then they will do that right back to me (and I won’t like it). In the second level (conventional) the main concern is how actions affect and are perceived by society; it’s not right to do this because everyone will talk about it (and I don’t like that). The final level (post-conventional), moral judgments are made based on some underlying principles; I should not do this because it will violate someone’s universal human rights (and I would have violated my own principles).

When we talk about the history of human rights, we are discussing how society has gone through these different stages. The first rule of justice, no matter the culture, is some variant of the Golden Rule, an eye for an eye. Eventually we discover the rights of the citizen, then finally the rights of humans. In humans, this moral evolution is innate in potential but not necessarily realized. Similarly is societies, after all, the Greek democracies eventually failed. But there seems to be a general trajectory of history toward post-conventional morality. Robert Wright, in his book “Nonzero” sees this path as the almost inevitable outcome of the beneficial nature of cooperation to human societies.

Of course Nonzero was written in the post-Cold War and pre 9/11 period, when the world was breathing a sigh of relief when the potential for global thermonuclear war seemed to disappear (I also remember David Rudder’s 1990 had a similar theme).