It’s Time to Think Differently

And so we arrive at our third component, Difference. (If you’ve not yet read my last two instalments, why not make a whole pot of tea now, and dig into my biscuit tin for the first two components, Attention and Equality.) Nancy Kline used to refer to this component as ‘Diversity’ but, with the term becoming so heavily loaded with meaning far beyond the dictionary definition, ‘Difference’ helps to bring us back on point. It goes beyond race, gender and abilities, to identity and thinking. In short, difference is about being different, and thinking differently.

The Thinking Environment’s behavioural guide offered by the Time to Think® community runs as follows;

“Difference: Championing our inherent diversity of identity and thought.”

It seems then that a trap was set by the former component, Equality, and its potential to draw us towards a close, yet wholly distinct cousin, ‘Sameness’. In pursuing the ideal of Equality, we could be excused for starting to group people together. Indeed, there are a host of psychological drivers that compel us to group together and seek out like-minded individuals all the time. So, before we delve into the idea of championing our infinitely varied perspectives, perhaps the opposite deserves some attention. Why is it that we are so drawn to people like us? It seems that we have evolved an attraction to sameness, but why?

Firstly, it’s human nature to seek validation. We see the world a certain way and we’re keen to be proven correct. Our brains have evolved to reduce complexity, so we can make sense of the world around us and make decisions swiftly. In pursuit of comfort, there’s something rather settling about being with those who confirm our perspective of the world. We can’t help but be drawn to people who think like us, and once we’ve found them, that validation also leads to a cosy sense of belonging. Easing off the anxiety pedal, we can now do away with a good chunk of any latent fear of rejection. If others think like us in one way, they’re then likely to agree with us, and ultimately support us in others, and choosing supportive groups has always served homosapiens rather well when it comes to survival.

We’re also hilariously impatient, increasingly so, with modern life feeding our hunger for answers to come thick and fast. The more we surround ourselves with like-minded people, the simpler the conundrums and complexities of life become thanks to our more ‘contained’ perspective on the world. Within that contained space then, self-expansion also becomes easier because the comparisons we draw feel more proximate. Learning within this sort of environment limits development to manageable steps, making life easier and ultimately, safer.

Homogeneity here is helping us to ‘think quick’, which of course feels great. The more we can make assumptions thanks to our assumed sameness of the group around us, the faster we can get to decisions and conclusions. Conversely, the more we dare to champion differences, the more there is to discuss, and consequently, slow us down.

However, what if our homogeneous quick thinking were to, heaven forbid, contain a few biases - a few untrue assumptions? Well, then as quick as our thinking might be, it’ll be based on flawed assumptions and be at best misguided, or worse, destructive and just plain wrong.

as quick as our thinking might be, it’ll be based on flawed assumptions and be at best misguided, or worse, destructive.

In fact, this idea of sameness is itself a flawed assumption; an illusion even! In truth, we are all really quite different. Scratch the surface of these common identifiers that we so desperately cling to and we find a world of infinite difference. In fact, whilst we might have similar thoughts and ideas from time to time, we don’t think the same at all. Our perspectives are wholly unique, yet we’re often afraid to admit this and continue to explore.

So, what to do?

Accepting that the sameness is an illusion, and we’re all different, we seem to have three choices. To play on the old Matrix movie maxim (and extend it a little), we appear to have three pills. Take the yellow pill, and we can continue to buy into the illusion that the group we’re in thinks exactly like us and that, just as they kindly confirmed, we’re right about the world and our place within it. Alternatively, take the red pill, dismiss the illusion and run away screaming. No one thinks exactly like us. We can no longer make a whole host of assumptions. Lots more is up for grabs and the world is suddenly a very scary, lonely place. We should hide immediately, to avoid any further conflict or confusion.

Finally, what if we were to take the blue pill; recognise the difference, but instead of allowing the fear to enter, we embrace and champion that difference for the learning opportunity that it offers. Yes, the learning will be painful, and slow, and conflict-ridden, but it will be rich, and complex, and since we’re not bought into an illusion, ultimately it will take us to some form of informed truth - whatever level of truth is available to us in this insanely complex world.

allowing the fear to enter, we embrace and champion that difference for the learning opportunity that it offers

There’s a lot resting on this decision, and it’s not correct to think of it as a single moment in time. We can choose to take any one of these three options, at any time, and switch as we see fit. All of us are, for reasons that are entirely human and reasonable, choosing to take the yellow pill on a daily basis and enjoy the illusion of sameness. Whether it’s speed, safety, or a need to belong, it’s inevitable that we will, most of the time, be drawn to like-minded people so we can go about our days more comfortably. But, if we were to pause once in a while and think about what’s potentially at stake, perhaps then we’d more frequently choose the blue pill; step out of our comfort zone, curious and respectful of the inherent difference around us. To value difference is to unite humanity. By valuing diversity of thought, we drive mutual respect and, consequently, greater understanding. Perhaps truly valuing difference could even bring about an end to war and pestilence. Eutopia even! Come to think of it, maybe difference is the most powerful of all the components in bringing people together. Or am I getting carried away?

Lately, thanks to the gift of a year’s subscription, I’ve found myself reading The Spectator, unaware of its deeply conservative roots at the outset. However, what I did become aware of is how frequently I find myself disagreeing, and even angry, with the writers (most notably Rod Liddle). The writing is almost always eloquent, no doubt doing wonders for my vocabulary, but what I perceive as dismissive nonchalance and elitism (something I’m trying to distance myself from) lead me to want to dismiss the magazine. So, should I cancel the subscription? No. That would be a mistake. It’s crazy, but only now have I realised that my education has led me to treat the books I read as factual; to be consumed and learned without question, but of course they’re not. They’re just opinions (albeit often well-informed ones), and I ought to appreciate multiple opinions, and then form my own, holding them all lightly. Though the articles in the Spectator might irritate me from time to time, the different perspectives are helpful in forming my own, provided I can balance them with alternate opinions. I suppose the New Statesman might offer that, but can I sensibly attribute the time to read both? Not a chance, but perhaps there’s a good rationalisation of the opinions I do collate, and the subjects I choose read on. That’s something for me to work out, but reading different perspectives is an essential ingredient for our development as good human beings. As Abraham Lincoln was quoted as saying (taken with a pinch of salt, since I can’t find the original reference), ‘I do not like that man. I must get to know him better’. I don’t take this to suggest that his hope was to ultimately like everyone, (though perhaps my own naivety finds that idea rather attractive) but rather that, to do good thinking, and to make good decisions, these were exactly the kinds of people he should make efforts to engage with and seek to understand. I must continue to read Rod Liddle’s articles, and hold his opinions lightly.

"I do not like that man. I must get to know him better". Abraham Lincoln

A little humility and respect should help us to, from time to time, step out of our comfort zone and engage with difference honestly and with an open mind. The learning edge of difference requires that we remain humble and curious about others. When we assume they’re the same, that may be an opportunity to dig deeper and see where the difference lies. When we notice ourselves shying away from difference, that could be our cue to move in a little closer and see where our similarities lie.

Again, it comes down to time, and perhaps a little courage. To adopt a more frequent position of curiosity and excitement around the difference that surrounds us requires that we open ourselves up to multiple perspectives. In order to truly learn in this space, we have no choice but to slow down in order to take it all in and ultimately better inform ourselves and make better decisions. However, if you’re not convinced that slowing down will eventually lead to you going faster, then you need only to refer to the history of our humanity for reassurance. Yes, we grouped together to form like-minded civilizations and gain safety and security in our similarities, but the leaps forward came about when differences collided, often tumultuously. Nevertheless, they alway lead, accepting a little death and destruction along the way, to innovation and progress. Perhaps our own progress will be a little gentler than humanity’s journey should we choose, once in a while, to step out of our comfort zone and champion the inherent difference that surrounds us.

Are your teams championing their inherent differences? Book a free 30-minute zoom session today.