Some Issues with Diversity, Modern Scientific Research and Materialistic Worldview

Picture: Transfiguration by Sergey Petrovich Panasenko, 1993

If we are serious about creating a better world we have to be willing to question the frameworks we have inherited especially when they present themselves as neutral, inevitable or complete. One of the most common objections raised whenever diversity is discussed particularly in workplaces and educational institutions is the insistence that education, qualifications and merit should always come first. On the surface this sounds reasonable however for many people this is where the conversation ends. But this position only appears self-evident if we ignore the context, history and psychology.

Empirical research strongly supports the idea that diversity enhances collective intelligence by expanding the range of perspectives available to a group. Hong and Page (2004) demonstrated that groups composed of individuals with diverse cognitive approaches often outperform groups of uniformly high-ability individuals when solving complex problems. The advantage lies not in superior intelligence but in the presence of multiple heuristics, assumptions and interpretive frameworks. This finding aligns with the psychological argument that systems become more resilient and creative when they integrate what has been excluded. Diversity functions not as a social correction but as a cognitive necessity reducing blind spots created by homogeneity and overconfidence in a single way of knowing.

Research on scientific innovation reveals that existing evaluation systems frequently fail to recognise this value. Hofstra et al (2020) found that scientists from underrepresented groups tend to produce more novel and disruptive ideas yet their work is less likely to be cited or rewarded. This suggests that what institutions label as merit is often biased towards familiarity and conformity rather than genuine originality. Rather than measuring excellence objectively, meritocratic systems may reinforce dominant paradigms by privileging ideas that fit established norms. This reinforces the broader philosophical concern that knowledge production including scientific research remains constrained by cultural assumptions about who is credible and which forms of insight are considered legitimate.

From a Jungian perspective what troubles us most is rarely what is wrong but what is incomplete. Merit, education and qualifications represent what Carl Jung would have called the conscious values of modern culture - traits that are measurable, respectable and institutionally safe. They form the persona of our organisations - standardised assessments and linear career trajectories. These structures matter but they are not the whole psyche.

Every system that elevates certain traits necessarily casts others into the shadow. When we say ‘only qualifications matter’ we often unconsciously exclude lived experience, cultural intelligence, emotional resilience and ways of thinking that do not conform to established norms not because they lack value but because they are harder to measure within existing frameworks. Diversity brings the shadow into the room. It introduces perspectives that disrupt unconscious assumptions about how intelligence looks and how leadership sounds. This disruption can feel threatening not because standards are being lowered but because it challenges the illusion that our existing standards are neutral or universal. Which is a big problem for some.

Jung described individuation as the process by which a person becomes whole not by rejecting the conscious self but by integrating the unconscious. Institutions undergo a similar process. A workplace or academic system that values only one cultural narrative, one cognitive style or one educational pathway may be efficient in the short term but it is psychologically one-sided. Over time this one-sidedness leads to stagnation, blind spots and fragility. Diversity is not about replacing competence with identity. It is about completing competence. When multiple ways of knowing and being coexist organisations become more adaptable, more creative and more resilient.

We often speak of merit as though it exists outside human context. Yet all standards are created by people, shaped by history, culture and power. What we reward reflects what we value and what we value reflects who has historically had the authority to decide. Modern scientific knowledge itself is not exempt from this limitation. Decades of research in psychology and medicine have shown that much of what is presented as universal knowledge is derived from a super narrow population. The majority of psychological research relies on so-called WEIRD populations - Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic yet its findings are routinely generalised to humanity as a whole. This is not an ethical indictment of science but a recognition of its structural constraints.

Research does not occur in a vacuum. As philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn observed, scientific inquiry operates within paradigms that define which questions are legitimate, which methods are acceptable and which explanations are considered serious. Once a paradigm becomes dominant it tends to protect itself often marginalising anomalies rather than integrating them.

The materialistic worldview that underpins much of modern science has been extraordinarily successful in producing technology and medicine. But success in one domain does not imply completeness in all domains. When applied to questions of consciousness, meaning and subjective experience, materialism begins to show its limits.

Rupert Sheldrake and other critics of orthodox materialism have argued that science sometimes treats philosophical assumptions as settled facts for example the belief that consciousness is entirely produced by the brain or that memory must be fully reducible to neural storage. Whether one agrees with Sheldrake’s proposals or not, his critique aligns with a broader movement in philosophy of science - the recognition that methodological materialism is a tool not a metaphysical truth. This tension has also surfaced in the modern psychedelic research. Philosophers and researchers associated with this movement have pointed out that experiences reported consistently challenge reductionist models of mind.

Science is becoming increasingly precise about its own uncertainty. In an increasingly complex world problems rarely arrive clearly labelled or solvable by textbooks and research alone - they require imagination, empathy and the capacity to hold contradiction without collapsing into defensiveness. These capacities are strengthened by diversity.

When diversity is resisted in the name of merit, we may unknowingly be defending comfort rather than competence. Just as individuals become healthier by integrating disowned aspects of themselves, institutions become healthier when they allow multiple voices, histories and intelligences to shape their future.

Indigenous knowledge systems offer a powerful example. For centuries, they were dismissed, suppressed or erased in the name of modernisation. Now, as ecological and existential crises deepen, elements of that same wisdom are being rediscovered and often reframed and validated only after being translated into Western scientific language. The irony. Perhaps the most fascinating belief of all is the assumption that scientific understanding represents the best possible interpretation of reality that could ever exist as if, since the beginning of the universe, this particular historical moment just happens to have arrived at the final truth. What are the odds of that being true?

The goal here is to recognise that without diversity - people, perspectives, methods and worldviews our definitions of merit, knowledge and progress remain unfinished. And what remains unfinished as Jung warned eventually demands to be seen, often in ways we least expect.

References

Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403723101

Hofstra, B., Kulkarni, V. V., Galvez, S. M.-N., He, B., Jurafsky, D., & McFarland, D. A. (2020). The diversity–innovation paradox in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(17), 9284–9291. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915378117