"Homo Administrans" reports on a recent trend to bring the methods of hard science to business studies, such as MBAs. As in many other social science areas, business schools have traditionally taught on the assumption that the skills required for success in business can be taught to anyone, and that they depend on cultural or social factors, such as education, to be developed. But the report says that this is false. In common with most other areas of human behaviour, a person's genetic make-up will exert a very significant effect on skills such as leadership, sales and other business factors. The article warns that this area of study is very recent, and cautions that further study is needed, but the preliminary results of genetic testing and studies of identical and fraternal twins nevertheless suggest that this field of human activity is no different to any other: that the bundles of DNA in our cells account for something like 50% of the variation between people.
I think that research like this teaches a valuable lesson: that just because something is widely believed does not make it true. For most of the past 50 years, it was believed that the social environment, culture and the like, was what made people the way they were: aggressive or peaceful, happy or miserable, intelligent or not, good at mathematics or literature, and so on. But that was wrong. Most surprising, and worrying, there was never any good evidence to believe it, only a lot of bad evidence badly used. For example, people correctly noted that children growing up in violent homes turned out more likely to be violent and do badly at school, and assumed that the correlation was causal, but when more careful analyses were done, it was discovered that violent parents had violent children not because of what they did but simply because they passed on genes that predisposed to violence. And business schools, like psychology, sociology and similar human disciplines used to until recently, still seem to assume that any one can be turned into a successful business person with appropriate leadership, management, sales skills and so on by giving them the right education and environment to develop in.
I think the same sort of false ideas are still very common today: people think that playing Mozart to their kids makes them more intelligent, or that the mother staying at home to look after them makes children better behaved or more successful at school, but those sort of ideas largely lack any good evidence, and are usually wrong.
As an antidote, I would like to see philosophy taught in schools. It might not make people more intelligent, but the habits of critical thinking it inculcates might at least help to make bad and false ideas less likely to be accepted and to spread. (I know my response isn't about business, but that was never why the article interested me; it is, remember, in the Science & Technology section, not the Business section.)
__________
References
It wasn't my turn to post this evening, but after I read teh article again, I decided I would like to share it.
ReplyDeleteAnd an extra post for you to comment on won't hurt.
I believe the variation of DNA in cells making the variation of people because in society I can see the variety of specialists such as artists, doctors, engineers, scientists etc. They are good in their jobs and selected to do the right things. For other reasons, people growing up to be quality should practice and learn. The methods of hard science to business studies is really good even if it doesn’t reach an agreement. In other way, they can understand a logic of hard sciences ,next they can apply for their everyday lives. For example, children have to play sport at school therefore they learn about win and lose. I realize that such an important way to be a good man.
ReplyDeleteI think that the argument between gene and environment, which affect human behavior more, is the classic argument. There are a lot of pros and cons for supporting the factors which they think it right and for debating the factor which they do not believe. I consider that your news (too long news) seems to support the roll of gene by referring to the research of twin, but twins can be the evidence of the importance of environmental roll in human identity too. For the example, you can see the twin who grow up different environment have different habits and skill, so it exemplifies that the environment is the important factor of human identity not less than gene. I consider the importance of gene, but I do not believe that it the major factor. If you take side to support the premier of gene, you have to face to the old classic questions --which one do you think it have more effect to people successful talent (gene) or effort (from environment)?--- what is the main factor of psychological problem body or experience? --- which theory do you prefer identity from gene or five stages of Sigmund Freud ?
ReplyDeleteI'm not so clear in the context although I read it a couple of times but I still have some opinions for this topic.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think that the way to success in business can be taught but it doesn't mean everyone will be success because it's depend on both education and genes.
Secondly, I totally agree with the first sentence of third paragraph but I just partly agree of the rest of paragraph because I think social environment and the like are important to make the way people were but it should be included genetic of person too.
Finally, I never interested in such subject even though my family support and push me to study in master degree; however, I still insist that I want to study the major which I interested in but I still agree with Peter that philosophy should be taught in school because critical thinking is important and Thai students are not get used to it.