The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies

In his latest book, "The Difference", Scott Page does a magnificent job of tackling the issue of whether or not there are any real benefits to having a diverse and inclusive learning or workplace environment; or is it all about political correctness. Page takes a scientific approach to showing how and why it is important to have people teamed together who see things differently and process information differently. He defines, models, and links both identity differences and cognitive differences. He shows how diverse teams often come to more creative and effective solutions than teams composed of people who all have similar backrounds,education and experiences. This book takes a complex subject and turns it into easy reading.

This remarkable book is chock-full of insights and surprising implications, but precisely for this reason it also runs the risk of being misinterpreted in various ways, especially by those who read it through ideological lenses or, more commonly perhaps, read it too casually. For example, some readers might get the impression that Page is not playing fair with his assumptions, that he is "rigging the game" to push an egalitarian, antielitist agenda--specifically, that he deliberately populates his models with agents whose abilities are defined so as to guarantee that diversity trumps ability. The attentive reader will appreciate, however, how carefully Page qualifies his conclusions; in point of fact, he does not maintain that diversity always trumps ability. There are two issues here, one logical and the other empirical. Page clearly explains that the diversity-trumps-ability conclusion holds only if the problem is difficult--that is, a problem for which no individual problem solver always locates the global optimum. As a matter of logic, the "rigging-the-game" argument does no damage to the model because it allows one to define ability so as to make the problem nondifficult. However, as a matter of practicality, the extent to which diversity actually trumps ability is an empirical question, which Page confronts head on. Throughout the book, Page offers anecdotal evidence of diversity's value, but in a chapter aptly titled "The Empirical Evidence" he reviews more systematically the academic research into the effects of diversity. The literature is voluminous, and he presents a fair and balanced overview. The evidence essentially shows that diversity does bring expected benefits, but not always and not always very strongly when it does. Diversity's power depends in part on the situation. If we look exclusively at firms that innovate, we do find returns from diversity, but there is no evidence and no reason to expect that diversity behind the counter at Burger King leads to a better way to slice onions or spread ketchup. Page concludes, fairly I believe, that the benefits of diversity are real in no small number of situations and that they are worth pursuing within a reasonable cost-versus-benefit framework. Does Page advocate the "diversity" of political correctness? Here again, the casual or the ideological reader might be given to false inference. As usual, Page treats the issue with caution, fairness, and a much needed dose of clear thinking. Diversity in the context of political correctness means different things to different people, of course, but those who equate diversity with feel-good notions of inclusiveness and sensitivity or "payback" affirmative-action policies should pay special attention to Page's discussion of identity diversity, which refers to differences related to the racial, cultural, religious, gender, and other "identities" into which we sort ourselves (and each other). This type of diversity is not, strictly speaking,

The Difference is a surprising book in that it is written in a manner that is is approachable by a fairly broad audience, but it does not sacrifice much in the way of the rigor that is expected from a book written for an academic audience. I am glad that this is the case, as this book deserves a wide readership. It provides a systematic case for the practical benefits of diversity. Insofar as we can think of ourselves as facing sufficiently difficult epistemic problems - particularly those of prediction - we can make ourselves better off by ensuring that our groups of problem-solvers are diverse in relevant respects. Page puts forth two major claims in the book, but unlike most, his claims are backed both by computer simulation and mathematical proof. The first claim is that diverse agents can do better in predictive problems than homogeneous groups. The second, far more interesting claim, is that diverse groups can do better than groups comprised of the most "able". Naturally, these claims must be understood within their scope. Page is scrupulous about demonstrating when these theorems obtain and when they do not. This book is particularly exciting for its potential to change the frame of several large debates. Insofar as his theorems can apply to real social situations, we can see that, for purely epistemic reasons, we all have something to gain from diverse teams and societies.

Viva la Difference! Scott Page takes us on a really enagaging tour that examines why diversity matters. You thought the subject was simple? Well it is if you think in terms of the usual ways we pigeon-hole each other (gender, race) but as Page quickly shows us - diversity can be framed in many, many more ways: and more than that - he can show proof after proof for why it makes a positive difference. What I love is his entertaining command of language, his knowledge of the subject and his clear enthusiasm for the topic. This is one of those books that, alongside the likes of Blink, Wisdom of Crowds and Tipping Point, deserves wide reading and social influence. In many ways it is an unabashed (and welcome) celebration of human-ness. Recommended.

Diversity matters, in law, in politics, in employment, in criminology, in sports, in media or entertainment, and in residential neighborhoods! But how? Why? When? Where? Under what conditions? For whom? These are the salient questions or issues addressed cogently by Professor Scott E. Page, using mathematical logic and rigorous empirical research. Instead of relying on vain rhetoric, legal gymnastics, simplistic anecdotes, and stylized moral platitudes, Page engages our thinking about diversity matters (such as affirmative action) with game theory and a plethora of experimental findings. Firstly, he contends convincingly (given the preponderance of the evidence cited) that diversity often matters more in problem-solving or in stimulating tangible innovations than reliance on individual ability alone. Secondly, he asserts that "the benefits of diversity also apply within individuals." In short, Page demonstrates that diversity is one of the most potent social forces available to human beings, vastly superior to the typical provincialism of homogeneity. Page urges us to ponder the implications of diverse mindsets, toolkits, heuristics, and outcomes. Amazingly, he instantiates these complicated ideas into plausible theorems that constructively guide the reader's assessments. Obviously, the United States and many nations around the world have incorporated increasing, albeit exponential, levels of complexity and diversity due to immigration and ethnic heterogeneity. Given the demographic trends that are influencing the future of populations in societies worldwide, Page has taken us where angels and traditional intellectuals fear to venture! He points us to the positive potential of diversity as it is negotiated within schools, firms, and societies. This monograph ought not to be dismissed by any rigorous scholar, policymaker, community leader, and citizen grappling with the perplexities of diversity in the 21st century. It empowers!