The Challenge Dividend

'Gators Don't Get Sick

Why is this guy smiling?  Maybe because he almost never gets a cold.

The Week reported new research that shows alligators have "super immune systems that ward off virtually every virus and bacteria, and scientists are now trying to figure out their secret, to create treatments that could be used by humans."  In a test of exposing alligator and human blood to 23 types of bacteria, the alligator blood killed all 23, while human blood only blocked 8.

Why would the lowly alligator have such special defenses?  Well, the Challenge Dividend of course.  According to Lancia Darville, a researcher at LSU:

"Alligators tend to get into tussles and fights.  They have torn limbs and scratches that are exposed to all of this bacteria in the water, yet they are never infected."

In other words, millions of years of tussling in a bacterial soup has pressured alligators to evolve to the point that they have these super immune systems.  Challenge leads to improvement, and survival.

And for humans, the challenge to cure disease and save lives leads researchers like Darville to seek innovative solutions through the study of alligator blood. 

No Two Alike: Story of Personality Development

One of the benefits of being a parent is that it begins a lifelong, living experiment into the development of your children.  Beginning with pregnancy and continually evolving through adulthood, we get a first-hand view of the miracle of life.  I find that one of the most interesting parts of my daughters' development is their personalities.  In addition to watching them change each day, I love to read books and articles regarding the latest research into what makes children - and ourselves - tick.  A few months ago I finished my new favorite book on the subject of personality: No Two Are Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality.

The author of No Two Are Alike, Judith Rich Harris, is a "self-taught academic" who essentially learned the art of research and publication through self-study, and has pursued a more multi-disciplinary approach than the typical professor or researcher.  With no tenure to secure or specialized belief system to adhere to, I find that Harris brings a much more open and honest appraisal of research than most of her university peers.

In No Two Are Alike, Harris continues a tradition of upsetting academics' core beliefs.  At the same time, she raises doubts among many parents with a stunning theory: Parents have very little influence over how their children develop.  I cannot do Harris's work justice by attempting to replicate her theory here in just a few words.  But, in short, she spends the first half of the book debunking every piece of research that shows parents can improve children's personality or IQ.  One of many examples is that, when you properly adjust for all other elements, more books in the home does not cause faster reading.  It is not fun to hear that parental involvement has no (or nearly no) impact on child development, but her findings are sound.

More interesting for this blog topic is her work on the second half of the book, in which Harris outlines what really does build children's personalities.  By using studies of identical twins - some raised together and others apart - she finds that genetics drives about 45% of personality definition.  The other 55% is determined by environment, and changes over time.  Evolution favored adjustment for environmental impact on personality because it allows for variance based on conditions in the "real world".  And evolution always drives variation among individuals - because variation itself is advantageous.

Starting in social situations with other children, all humans begin experimenting with various "personality strategies".  Those that help us succeed become more deeply ingrained.  Harris outlines three competing "systems" which all drive personality development in different ways:

• Relationship System: Goal is to establish and maintain favorable relationships, to acquire knowledge about other people, and to share that knowledge with others.
• Socialization System: Goal is to be a member of a group, to be accepted by its members, to defend and conform to the group's norms.
• Status System: Goal is to be better than one's rivals, to compete and earn higher status, and to acquire self-knowledge by comparing oneself with others.

So in personality development, competition leads to improvement.  These three internal "programming" systems compete to have the best impact on an external competition with others in our social system for status and success.  The result is the best possible lifelong personality for each individual.

You may counter that "yes, but bad people and personalities develop."  My answer would be that this is more of a reflection of the society we put children into, rather than a natural result of social competition.  If we continue allow poor children to go to poor schools in poor communities, then we should expect more of the same.  On the other hand, in much of the United States - if not the world - our society has grown more tolerant and trusting over the generations.  Children born into this more "positive" world than what we grew up in will in turn produce a better society and beget children who take it further.

Near the end of her book, Harris does offer some consolation for parents who wish to positively impact their children:

"Parents do have some power to produce long-term effects on their children's behavior, but their power is indirect: it comes by way of the socialization system.  It resides in their ability to determine where and by whom their children will be socialized.  The parents decide which society to live in, which culture their children will grow up in, where they will go to school."

For me, this gives me greater satisfaction with my wife and my choice of a school environment for our children, in spite of the extra cost of private school.  At the same time, I find it more tragic that politics continues to limit our ability to fix schools in bad neighborhoods.  Each day we fail to solve this issue, more children adapt their personalities to a society dominated by guns, drugs and violence.  I'm a firm believer in school vouchers as a way to improve choice and introduce challenge dividends.  A recent NYTimes article confirms that voucher program parents in Washington, DC are very pleased.

More Proof of Brain Discussion

Loyal readers know that I believe the Challenge Dividend theory goes way beyond business and other organizations - that it seems hard wired into all facets of human life.  One great example is the structure and workings of the brain itself.  Rather than being a perfect, logical, computer-like instrument, our brains are more like the British House of Commons - where dozens of different perspectives are offered up, and through the challenge of considering multiple options from multiple "voices" we chose the best response.  Most of the time.

New research has discovered a "new" voice in our heads.  The WSJ reported last Friday on a new "morality center" of the brain.  Like most brain research, this study focused on individuals who had suffered brain damage in a similar section of the pre-frontal cortex.  In research, they answered hypothetical moral dilemmas such as: "Would you throw one person overboard in a life raft to save yourself and the rest?"  For most people, these questions illicit a pained response.  But for the test subjects, there was no emotion.  They lack the moral voice that weighs in on tough decisions.

So millions of years of evolution resulted in a very strong, non-logical, and at least somewhat unselfish mind.  A mind that weighs multiple options and even the lives of multiple people before coming to important decisions.  But we already knew this, right?  Because whether Harvard biologists prove it or not, we all hear our minds' internal debate everyday.  Whether it's the decision to have a snack before dinner or what to wear in the morning, we are blessed with the dividends of internal challenge.

Bring Da Noise

For more proof that humans are programmed to embrace and improve upon challenge, the book Noise, by Bart Kosko, suggests that annoying sounds can actually be beneficial.

According to Kosko, as quoted in a Wired interview:

• The more you can concentrate with background noise, the more it strengthens the brain. 
• Adding small amounts of electrical noise helps a nanotube antenna detect faint binary signals.
• Injecting a little bit of random pixel noise helps digital photographers see hidden details in an overexposed image.

Kosko goes on to the tell the story of sci-fi author, Isaac Asimov, who used to set up his typewriter in stores and other loud places to work.

I think there is probably some truth to this theory.  Noise and distractions of any kind force us to better focus our attention.  I also find it interesting that most people "escape" noise on the street or in their offices by plugging into their iPods, which bring even more, direct noise.

Focus group of one: I am writing this entry from New York City where the sound of constant honking, alarms, and sirens is not stopping me from perfecting my craft.  Now if I can only learn to ignore the ping of an email hitting my inbox and I would be a champ...