There's this new word that I've heard repeatedly as of late that I decided to look into, which is homogeneous.
This can be defined with this rather common example of milk, which appears uniform to the eye even though it's technically a mixture of different components almost evenly distributed.
As a concept, I think uniformity in composition or character sits at the heart of some of our most pressing cultural and intellectual challenges.
Here are three arenas where the tension between homogeneous and mixed (opposite of the former) forces shapes our world.
I appreciate the existence of social media for the fact that it connects us across boundaries and have this exposure to almost the full spectrum of human thought and experience.
Along the way, when we crossed from Web 1.0 to algorithmic feeds, this same mirrored reality has engineered uniform islands in a diverse sea.
By that, I mean the algorithms have sorted us into groups where everyone thinks alike, even though we started out as a wildly diverse bunch of people with different views.
The mechanism is elegant in its efficiency, in that algorithms observe what we engage with and serve us more of the same, albeit subconsciously like we're a bit too dumb to notice it.
Watch a conspiracy video and tumble down a rabbit hole of reinforcing narratives based on the change of content in one's For You feed.
So we shifted from a diverse population with millions of people with wildly different beliefs, backgrounds, and perspectives to a collective of algorithmically sorted tribes into clusters of striking sameness.
It could be that we becoming more divided is simply because we're becoming more uniform within our respective bubbles. Probably that's a good working theory.
The productive friction that comes from encountering genuine differences that challenges assumptions and refines thinking has more or less disappeared.
As a possible solution, one could learn how to intentionally cultivate both.
Get enough shared reality (uniform baseline facts) to have meaningful conversations, and enough exposure to different perspectives (diverse viewpoints) to avoid intellectual atrophy.
Few debates generate more heat than the question of cultural integration.
Should diverse societies aim for a cultural identity where differences dissolve into a unified whole?
Or should they celebrate a mosaic spectrum with distinct pieces retaining their character while forming a larger picture?
I'm of the opinion that this doesn't need an answer that chooses one over the other.
Functional societies require some degree of uniformity. For example, a shared commitment to fundamental principles that everyone, regardless of background, can rally behind.
Democratic societies need uniform agreement on basic rights, the rule of law, and peaceful conflict resolution. Without this common foundation, the center hardly ever holds.
And the result(s) of that could be pictured as a society that is diverse all the way down, with no shared values or mutual obligations.
Technically, I don't even think that's really a society, more so it's just people occupying the same geography.
First, you need at least a solid foundation then introduce differences.
Uniform in our commitment to human dignity and democratic principles and diverse in how we express our humanity and pursue meaning.
I'm a bit more familiar with the innovation angle of this word as I've observed that some of groundbreaking work happens when you combine deep expertise with diverse perspectives. E.g, Steve Jobs combining design sensibility with technical engineering.
Too much uniformity in thinking and getting trapped in the prison of conventional wisdom usually happens via group think. Everyone shares the same background, training, and assumptions. I want to avoid that.
Whereas a lack of depth of expertise to push boundaries comes about through too much surface-level diversity without any real mastery. Knowing a little about a lot.
Breakthrough ideas seemingly emerge at the boundary between these forces.
As an example and applying this concept, a pharmaceutical company would employ biologists, chemists, and doctors (uniform in scientific training) who come from different countries, age groups, and life experiences (diverse in perspective).
This works naturally sometimes without any intention put into achieving such an outcome. However, it can't always be said for these times we live in with increasingly siloed disciplines.
The same principle operates at the level of individual insight. Depth times breadth. Expertise times perspective. Uniform skill times diverse thought.
The thread connecting these three domains is a single insight which states that you can't build a house without a foundation and a foundation isn't much without building a house on top of it.
Of course, this is my interpretation of it. The real interpretation may be something similar, albeit more refined and articulate than an analogy based on a foundation and a house.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
