This article, like many other science articles, follows this template:
People have long suspected that <extremely general conclusion involving vaguely-defined terms with complex meanings, like 'intelligence', 'love', 'creativity', 'belief'>. But now scientists have proved it. <Description of experiment, in which some simple test is used as a substitute for the trait in question - either a psych test, or an MRI, or something - and middle class North Americans are used as a substitute for humanity>.
I haven't lived abroad, but simply from travel and reading, it becomes clear that many social practices are arbitrary, and the range of workable possibilities is much larger than simple intuition-from-limited-experience might suggest.
After a while, surprise that things could be done so differently becomes surprise that each region thinks their ways are so natural.
That sort of insight certainly helps in negotiation scenarios like the one tested, and possibly other problem-solving as well.
"To check that they had not merely discovered that creative people are more likely to choose to live abroad, Dr Maddux and Dr Galinsky identified and measured personality traits, such as openness to new experiences, that are known to predict creativity."
Is this what passes for controls these days? It'd be much smarter to test people right before they're about to go abroad.
Social sciences generally can't manage the strict experimental methods we're taught in science so they rely on quasi-experimentation (and are fully aware that that is less rigorous). The control you suggest would be confounded by the problem of age. What if people get more (or less) creative just through the passage of time?
Not that I'm defending this study, though it may be extremely rigorous, it's really impossible to know from an economist article.
Yes, but there is far more diversity in the US than in other regions, let alone other countries.
For example, there's more diversity south of the Tehachapis than there is in Western Europe. (It would be mean to point out the diversity within 50 miles of Disneyland.)
Are you sure about that? I lived in Pamplona for a year, and I noticed a lot more cultural difference between the local Basques, the French Basques across the border, the Spaniards to the South and the Catalans to the East than I ever saw between LA, NYC and Nebraska.
That's one 50 mile circle. Europe has dozens of similar examples.
Thais, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Columbians, Armenians, Turks, Iraqis, Israelis, and so on, And yes, I'm ignoring the differences in each and I haven't even mentioned the Europeans.
I think I see now what you're using to define diversity. America certainly does have plenty of immigration, and plenty of "little wherever"s, but really they don't make much of a dent in the Monoculture.
If you're going to argue that Northern Basque communities near Southern Basques communities is diversity, then a "little Korea" next to "little Manila", each with more people, qualifies.
It's not a "monoculture" so much as a dominant one. Yes, one can live within the monoculture, but the ability to make that choice doesn't mean that one could choose to live in a large number of cultures within the US.
And, both monoculture and dominant culture overstates things significantly. Even if one thinks that NYC is one culture, it's not the same as upstate NY's culture, let any of the ones in Texas.
Yes, there are lots of places in the US where one can find very similar cultures, but again, that's a choice. (Ever hear the term "don't Californicate Colorado/Oregon/Arizona"?)
You'd think that folks who claim to value diversity would actually practice it given the choice.
Ok, they filtered out for some known factors that encourage creativity... but we barely know how creativity works, so how can they know for sure they've filtered for all the factors?
To me, it seems that it's as likely there's a factor they don't know about, as that their hypothesis holds (i.e. living abroad causes creativity).
The article sounds more like reaching a predetermined conclusion, rather than research.
"Nevertheless, where both negotiators had lived abroad 70% struck a deal in which the seller was offered a management job at the petrol station in return for a lower asking price. When neither of the negotiators had lived abroad, none was able to reach a deal."
Struck me as incredibly obvious, in the few seconds between the presentation of the situation and the solution, and I have never lived abroad, and don't usually consider myself all that creative.
However, although this article itself might not prove much, when I was doing some research I came across this study which had found a link between eminent scientists and immigrants. I think it might be the cultural shock which perhaps forces the individual to once more learn the basics, i.e. customs, traditions, how to behave and of course language.
People have long suspected that <extremely general conclusion involving vaguely-defined terms with complex meanings, like 'intelligence', 'love', 'creativity', 'belief'>. But now scientists have proved it. <Description of experiment, in which some simple test is used as a substitute for the trait in question - either a psych test, or an MRI, or something - and middle class North Americans are used as a substitute for humanity>.
I find these articles really tiresome.