Different Minds, Different Ways of Doing Things

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

It is generally held that the mind and passion have an inseparable connection. On the basis of this claim, the mind is affirmed to be responsible for thinking processes; passion is held to inspire action or inaction. The role of these two internal items in each person is essentially unique; but we can also say that culture plays a major function in structuring individual thoughts and actions into socially classifiable forms. If culture Y and culture Z are very distinct, it will be unwise to say that, in general, social thought and social actions in these two cultures are alike. There is a certain kind of general uniformity that can be recognized in social thoughts and actions, and this enables one to conclude that Y and Z are different. But why are Y and Z different? It is because the said general uniformity in Y differs from the uniformity in Z. It makes a lot of sense to categorize all the members of Y and all the members of Z as belonging to identifiable cultures. The movement of people in either direction - from Y to Z or from Z to Y - can restructure individual thoughts and actions to conform to the new lived-in culture. That is why culture refers to the inner and outer life of a people largely moulded by the forces of the environment.

If environments differ, culture is likely to differ and people’s life histories will, accordingly, differ. Besides the claim that thoughts and passions could conform, in a general way, to culture, it can also be said that the internal operation of each person’s mind and passion is different. Since human minds are different, it is prudent to incorporate the different-ness in assessing each individual’s aptitude. Each person's way of absorbing percepts, ideas or knowledge and way of processing percepts, ideas or knowledge and executing them will, as well, be different. This is what we usually refer to as talent, meaning the innate abilities that each person has, which differ from each and every person. And the question of talent ought to constitute a major factor in determining and executing school curricular. The teaching of children particularly presses the question of talent into consideration.

It is true to say that the problem in formal education comes about from how to integrate all kinds of talents in the planning and teaching process. Were a teacher to obey the talent-linked rule, then the teaching method will, somehow, be non-standard. It will turn out that the teacher has to satisfy the aspirations of each student and see to it that each student advances his/her talent in a fashion that will develop the knowledge and wisdom bank of the society. So far, formal education is meant to generate competition and to find out which students are outstanding compared to others. Uniform tests direct the aforesaid competition. This frustrates attempts at using the non-standard method of planning and teaching.

Should each child’s talent be allowed to mature through a selective method of teaching, or should each child’s talent be ignored in favour of a uniform method of teaching, testing and grading? The second alternative is what has, generally, fashioned school curricular up to the present. The first alternative appears hard to implement though it is worth trying. What the first alternative may require is a teaching method whereby each student is encouraged to show his/her talent in every subject based on the way he/she answers and asks questions. Some striking creativity can develop out of such an untested initiative. The teacher reckons the developments and slots them into subsequent classroom or home-based tests.

Test questions, with time, are made as inclusive of the needs of each student as possible; and each student has the option to choose from a whole range of questions to answer. In line with this system of pedagogy, the compulsory answering of questions is avoided, for it does not consider the different needs and talents of each student as have been well recognized by the teacher(s).

What, then, is the use of test questions or a system of student evaluations whose sources are not from the students’ teachers but are external? Uniform external examinations, prepared not by students’ teachers but by outside agents, tend to frown upon, reject outright, the unlike aptitude of individual students and imposes a moratorium on the liberated advancement of each student’s talent. This is, perhaps, a mockery on individual creativity, on the individual exploration of talents. No wonder many students grow to detest the rigorous techniques that are used in teaching them, techniques that usually do not consider where students' respective interests and skills reside.

The position I subscribe to - which one may call a thesis - is that there is in every society patterns of thinking that follow, quite naturally, from the culture. The culture itself is a major reflection of the unique environment. Group or collective manners of thinking reflect the operational culture, a condition we may style social thinking; yet, patterns of thinking have shades, gradations. One fundamental shade or gradation of thinking is personal thinking, which tends to resist conformity with social thinking. It is to personal thinking that we derive talents; talents are dissimilar in any number of ways. If talents A to Z are all dissimilar, how, then, do standardized tests promote individual talents in ways that satisfy the aspirations of each student?

This issue of individual talents - how individual talents grasp percepts and ideas and process them in diverse ways - brings the notion of intelligence quotient (IQ) to the fore. An objective assessment of IQ shows it to be in a clear disrepute. To engage in standardized tests of varied individual minds enriched with varied talents and proceed thereafter to claim that in terms of psychological measurements, person Q has a higher level of intelligence than person R, that person D has a lower level of intelligence than person E insults the richness of talents, the diversity of minds. It can, moreover, be seen that the thesis of IQ tapers into much more absurdity when it strives to conclude - and, in fact, concludes - that the level of social thinking in, say, culture Y is higher than the level of social thinking in, say, culture Z. For the idea of resorting to the assessment of cultures in relation to IQ computations promotes a veritable contradiction. If cultures that are being assessed are relative in terms of how inner and outer lives function, then absolutist conclusions about intelligence only raise serious doubts about the justification of such an enterprise.

To me, it is still unclear how students have to be taught and managed in the classroom; but it is clear that the standardized procedure of teaching students who have dissimilar minds, hence dissimilar intelligence, is unsatisfactory. Some people who are keen on observing prudence may support a system that incorporates both the elements of standardization and non-standardization.

The notion of different minds from different cultures, of different social thinking and personal thinking from different cultures, has a clear implication and application in business just as it does in formal education. Suppose Business executive P from culture P1 wants to do business with business executive Q from culture Q1, who is to decide the outcome? The outcome is a matter of an accord in business in relation to the two cultures. If culture is shunned in the discourse, conclusions reached, even if they are claimed to be an accord, are likely to be capricious in the course of time.

A Look at Mechanization

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

A man is unable to use his solid competence in art and craft. His society has, so far, given very little credence to what he has trained himself in. Gone in the very distant past were art and craft held in high regard by those who had more than enough money to part with on such hand-crafted products. Even in all conceivable corners of the society, art and craft used to be esteemed. Exhibitions were rife, and so many people patronized them with a vigour that was more than usual. What must have gone wrong that this enthusiasm ebbed and turned out later to reduce art and craft to the level of comparative negligence? Now is the reign of money, many people may say. The aesthetic qualities in hand-made art and craft are esteemed, yet they do not command the requisite attention at this time. Their preeminence has been dislodged by the products from, especially, mechanization.

The lust for money, which is triggered by the principle of profit, has come to govern the conscience of those who now know that in, say, mechanization and its ownership rests the accumulation of profit. And profit has seized the conscience of many a business owner so much that other issues pertaining to human decorum and ecological stability are belittled. But our man in question has begun to curse himself in the society he lives in - a society he has judged to be out of touch with the natural course of things. He used to admire the gradual pace of mechanization, for he thought, then, that it was refining the crudities of life, adding flavour to it, in the form of easing the length of time physical labour was expended on doing things. Technological products, for him then, were affording special comfort to life。Here we were now with all sorts of appliances, gadgets, electronic products, automobiles, computers, TVs, camcorders, and so on that facilitated output and personal comfort. So, where is the fuss? What is the problem of our man?

Our man saw for himself, in a repeated fashion, how people’s lives were being debased and dented by daily routines at workplaces. Workers, he said, were going through repetitive tasks that had little or nothing to do with the creative powers of the mind; he pushed his thoughts about life to a fixed level of pessimism. For him, mechanization and its workers are one and the same: strict conformity to procedures and tasks and little or no exploits regarding the workings of the mind.

It is not that easy to claim that this man is right or wrong with his thoughts. But one thing that is known for sure is that he detests a society that has neglected his skills in art and craft; so, he now lives with a raging consciousness that confronts mechanization and its admirers or followers with disgust. As if this downright confrontation is not enough, he sees anybody who is “trapped” into working for his/her living in the mechanization system as an embodiment of bondage.

The true meaning of life has, perhaps, been oversimplified by our man. Where - one may ask - does art and craft fit in the overall scheme of development, especially in the area that requires producing as much as possible to cater to the rising consumption needs of a growing population? Art and craft are great showpieces that point at striking creativity; but they are outpaced, for the most part, in importance when populations grow to squeeze usable spaces and, in addition, crave for more consumable products? Maybe, on account of the fact that mechanization has come to overwhelm art and craft, people’s creative inclinations have been stifled by the alternative of having to work in the mechanization system. Besides, it is not just art and craft. One’s talent may dwell in fashion and design, the complex usages of science and technology, acting, singing, dancing, etc. But if one is unable to explore such talents to aid in personal and social advancement, then the system in place is faulted, criticized by those who see a whole range of other people trapped into doing monotonous jobs that mechanization requires in accordance with routine procedures. This is where our man scores points!

Mechanization, thus, generates a paradox that lacks a clear solution. To simplify work procedures and make the most of production for human consumption, mechanization offers the best alternative. But, then, mechanization is posing serious threats to human exploits, suppressing talents instead of unearthing them. Yet, it is to mechanization that we need to give credit for the high production that has been able to satisfy ever-growing consumption needs. But once mechanization is left unchecked, it brings the sin of wastes to bear on the environment.

This issue of environmental wastes has been well grasped by Johnny. He likes to ponder over his impaired health, which he is fond of associating with the eroding quality of the environment. Quite often, he occupies himself in a soliloquy about mechanization vis-à-vis the environment and concludes that the worst is yet to come. For every question he asks himself, he is able to proffer an answer - correct, partially correct or incorrect. What can be seen is that every one of his answers hints at pessimism and not a trace of optimism.

It is common to see Johnny sitting on a canvas armchair in front of the main entrance of his decaying house when his soliloquy mood is apparent. He will raise his head up and wear a facial expression that will evidently show that he is talking to himself though in silence. But how can Johnny, a man who loves nature so much and admire, as well, mechanization, accommodate these two in his overall judgement about how we, as humans, are faring in relation to our environment? He is ready to claim that it is not mechanization, technology, that is the problem but the misuse. And since misuse is the problem, the environment ought to recede in quality. It is true to say that automobiles, for example, have eased the way we travel from one place to another. There is even a progressive advancement in their utility, which is something Johnny compliments so much; but a contradiction in his thoughts become clear when he begins to question the quality of the environment in relation to automobiles in particular.

Johnny is prepared to say: “Gone are the days when we had so many trees lined up in this neighbourhood and on the streets. Green grass was ubiquitous, and the freshness of the air could be felt everywhere. Frequent rains added to the health of the environment. Environmentally friendly animals and birds welcomed this kind of environment; but now all those trees have been cut to give way to paved roads for automobiles. Grass has suffered too much as manufacturing plants are being built all the time. Gasoline fumes are tormenting the environment with scary pollution and diminishing the ozone layer, and the heat of the sun is striking the earth with a hitherto unknown kind of intensity. And how many people’s health get eaten away due to environmental hazards brought about by gasoline fumes? Consider the number of lands that are appropriated for use by manufacturing plants or the mechanization system, lands that could otherwise have been used for human habitation.”

But this kind of lamentation is not the end of the matter. One may go on to ask the question as to what happens should Johnny’s expectations be fully met. Will not a whole lot of employees go without jobs? Just think of the numerous manufacturing plants spread around the globe that produce automobiles all the time and the employees who earn their living by working at such plants. What alternative jobs are available for such employees should the plants close down? Suppose these other jobs were available, how much will the employees be paid? Will the payoffs be as good as those offered at manufacturing plants? So we face a dilemma in the sense that in the long run we have to answer the question regarding how a large number of employees could earn reasonable wages from alternative sources granted where they presently work – at manufacturing plants, at mechanization centres – are closed down with the alleged hope of saving the natural environment from untoward ruin. We, as humans, are facing real threats about the way we are massively producing, which does not go well for the environment. The risks are high if we go on a consumption spree, which in turn requires or entails a production spree; or is it the other way round? It is, perhaps, not mechanization or the manufacturing plants that are the problem. One might say that if we have chosen to be “technological” beings, then we have to fit our needs within the framework of the natural environment. We need to constantly be addressing the question: “what kind of production and products are best suited to or fitting for an ecological balance?” This question ought to precede questions about our consumption style(s).

A Short Inquiry of Business

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

1. The chaos that could ruffle business is the best test of the competence of the business executive. This is the time the finest creative ability is pressed on consciousness. If the executive does not subscribe to old principles that insist: “follow routines”, then new ways of doing things could be far more reaching for corporate development than was previously envisaged. Chaos simply presents the best room for remarkable creativity.

2. With time, we fail to succeed in business. Failure here could be due to a rush to compete, not compete in a rush; and this is a kind of menace business managers tend to overlook.

3. Business advancement is not merely a matter of the use of prudence but also of the use of unintended carelessness. Unintended carelessness produces errors. In fact, prudence alone spawns dull constancy in creativity while errors activate the intellect and will to act in ways other than before. Ultimately, an exciting creativity gets hold of business, which proves to pay far more than before.

4. Your vision of international business becomes consistent with sound business principles when you understand that, in business relations, what conforms to acceptable standards is nothing but like reverence for other forms of culture.

5. If civilization grows in relation to the quality of life of a people, then doing business must avoid tampering with other people’s way of life. A way of life fixed within the boundaries of culture is meant to encourage quality. What does a business from one culture hope to achieve when it enters a relation with business from another culture? The answer, of course, is that the growth of civilization is anticipated. If one culture wants growth so much at the expense of another or others, we have imposed the curse of business tyranny on the general structure of business. Cultures, civilizations tremble since their respective natural elements have been tainted by unnatural business intrusions.

6. Routine is the mother of discipline; yet inexorable discipline that derives from inexorable routine does not bode well for a business that expects creativity to direct its pace of development.

7. A business executive, a male for example, who spends much of his time complaining about the petty errors of his employees instead of praising them suffers from destabilized emotions, fear of failure and the specter of pessimism. Analyze the history of his life, and you will recognize that these traits got cultivated largely from his family.

8. The main reason the conscience of business executives grows to help in the corresponding growth of business is that they hold fast to the principle of tolerance, not courage. The principle of courage incites bold decisions and acts though it does not necessarily give the desired weight to the moral character along with responsibility in business relations. If business is to yield domestic and international peace, harmony, cultural stability, the principle of tolerance ought to guide it, not courage; yet we need courage to activate the soul of tolerance.

9. The man who chooses to do so many different things when his business is flourishing at a fast pace brings confusion to bear on his intellect and will. For how can he focus pertinent ideas on his business to enable it have steady progress? His problem is that he has shifted a large amount of attention towards winning public accolades, not on encouraging business advancement.

10. The business executive who does little but has been able to let his/her employees do almost all the great work for him/her is much better than the business executive who does so much and has not been able to let his/her employees do almost all the great work for him/her. For sure, the former business executive has better communication skills than the latter; the latter may have better technical skills than the former but lacks the ability to win the passion and soul of his employees. This shows that in business, a business executive’s communication skills play a far more important role than technical skills.

11. The greatest bore among employees is the one who excels and prides in his/her technical skills while failing at every turn to express even basic - or moderate - communication skills. This employee lacks the team spirit and may prove wanton in the corporate family so vital for keeping the elements of production running in a steady, progressive fashion.

12. A business that spends so much time on conformity to the corporate culture fails to emphasize the role of creativity in the progress of business. Standards, rules, regulations: these are boredoms, impediments to creativity. We need a hodgepodge of ideas to shake up the edifice of business, the business process on hand. Herein lies a vital way to arouse product(s) advancement, business progress.

13. The prudence we need in business is of this kind: take care to do things, so that you do not fail to have the resources to accommodate the doings. The entrepreneurial spirit has to conform to this business prudence.

14. When over-ambition rules the intellect, the conscience, the will, the manners of the business executive, it tends to overshadow business prudence and personality gets debased.

15. There is a certain kind of thing about business that discourages the moralist from subscribing to all the tenets of business. It is this: where business prevails, profit rules and the natural character of the natural environment as well as the health of the people lose through nobody’s fault. On such an issue, the moralist is right; for the environment and the people this kind of business ignores are the things that bear the weight of business.

16. The agony of business comes, not from crushing deficits, but from the reluctance to shake off old ways of doing things even as the social culture is changing in its demographics and the acquired or/and natural tastes of the people. So, the warning goes like this: change your business style when the social culture is changing!

17. A man walks into a company that is hiring. He is fit for the job, but the (business) interviewer tells him he can’t be hired because it is likely this man will devote much more attention to his spouse and four children than the company. But, then, personal and family cultures are wedded to social culture, which means by denying this man a job the company has caused a ruin in the social culture. What we need to understand, then, is that business culture only functions along the paths of social culture. In business, to think merely of the business culture without due consideration to the social culture is a miscalculation.

18. I keep coming back to the issue of social culture as we tend not to recognize its pervasive influence on business culture, not the contrary. Suppose social culture is falling apart for the reason that it has gone through misguided planning, then business culture crumbles or breaks at a faster pace to torment the overall culture.

19. To understand how business ought to accord with the structure of culture - the cultural phenomena - study the following two kinds of businesses in two different societies. In society X, technology has advanced to towering heights resulting in a small human input regarding the production process. In society Y, technology is just basic while human input towards production comes mainly from the use of the hands - and is overwhelming. Plentiful production is typical of society X but for society Y, production is pretty small. But, then, both X and Y have their weaknesses and benefits. Society X ought not to be said to be superior to Y, nor Y to X. What we have here is that human needs are better met in X than in Y, especially where the population is sprawling; but the retention of much of the sanity of the environment is better met in Y than in X. It is, therefore, as if we are being pressed to say that the development of technology should go on hand-in-hand with that of the crafts. This condition will be espoused by devotees of the principle of balance. The same condition embellishes the environment with wellness.