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.