Slashdot Mirror
Why Hiring the 'Best' People Produces the Least Creative Results (qz.com)
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report written by Scott E. Page, who explains why hiring the "best" people produces the least creative results: The burgeoning of teams -- most academic research is now done in teams, as is most investing and even most songwriting (at least for the good songs) -- tracks the growing complexity of our world. We used to build roads from A to B. Now we construct transportation infrastructure with environmental, social, economic, and political impacts. The complexity of modern problems often precludes any one person from fully understanding them. The multidimensional or layered character of complex problems also undermines the principle of meritocracy: The idea that the "best person" should be hired. There is no best person. When putting together an oncological research team, a biotech company such as Gilead or Genentech would not construct a multiple-choice test and hire the top scorers, or hire people whose resumes score highest according to some performance criteria. Instead, they would seek diversity. They would build a team of people who bring diverse knowledge bases, tools and analytic skills. That team would more likely than not include mathematicians (though not logicians such as Griffeath). And the mathematicians would likely study dynamical systems and differential equations.
Believers in a meritocracy might grant that teams ought to be diverse but then argue that meritocratic principles should apply within each category. Thus the team should consist of the "best" mathematicians, the "best" oncologists, and the "best" biostatisticians from within the pool. That position suffers from a similar flaw. Even with a knowledge domain, no test or criteria applied to individuals will produce the best team. Each of these domains possesses such depth and breadth, that no test can exist. When building a forest, you do not select the best trees as they tend to make similar classifications. You want diversity. Programmers achieve that diversity by training each tree on different data, a technique known as bagging. They also boost the forest 'cognitively' by training trees on the hardest cases -- those that the current forest gets wrong. This ensures even more diversity and accurate forests.
Believers in a meritocracy might grant that teams ought to be diverse but then argue that meritocratic principles should apply within each category. Thus the team should consist of the "best" mathematicians, the "best" oncologists, and the "best" biostatisticians from within the pool. That position suffers from a similar flaw. Even with a knowledge domain, no test or criteria applied to individuals will produce the best team. Each of these domains possesses such depth and breadth, that no test can exist. When building a forest, you do not select the best trees as they tend to make similar classifications. You want diversity. Programmers achieve that diversity by training each tree on different data, a technique known as bagging. They also boost the forest 'cognitively' by training trees on the hardest cases -- those that the current forest gets wrong. This ensures even more diversity and accurate forests.
The headline is garbage, but there is some truth in the waterfall of words in that summary: we have become a nation of specialists. Not only are we specialists, but the amount to which we've specialized is actually quite stunning.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, we all want diversity, don't we?
But it seems evidence in favor is lacking.
Shouldn't there be numerous success stories, even anecdotal, if it's really all that favorable?
None of us are as dumb as all of us.
Me doing all the work, and a bunch of other people sitting on their asses.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I don't know who the author was. I am assuming that the author's mother tongue is the Queen's language
The 'waterfall of words', however, confirm my suspicion that the author is no way near the 'best' category
Or so we have been told.
Y'know, I mock the Randians as much as the next free-thinker, but dammit if some of her screeds aren't proving a bit prescient.
The problem is in what constitutes "the best". I think people often gauge that against what they, themselves, know and/or are good/bad at or against some "standard" even though those may not be good criteria for the actual task or problem at hand. It may explain the perceived value of people who "think outside the box", which are often just instances of non-linear (or right-brain) thinking. Everyone is at a different place on the learning curve. Many people fail to realize that there are many curves and they can intersect and/or overlap in unexpected ways.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Real innovation involves changing paradigms, and every definition of "best people" is based on the mastery of those people based on existing paradigms. There is only a partial exemption for people who become famous for creating new paradigms to solve important problems, but they were NOT recognized as "best" until AFTERWARDS. More often, they spend most of their lives fighting against the old paradigms. (Any better sources than The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn? It's a classic, but old.)
Anecdotal evidence, but I spent many years supporting a highly prestigious research lab, and I didn't see much that I would regard as real innovation. Mostly a stream of minor refinements hammered into patents with the support of skilled lawyers and even though most of them should have failed on the obviousness test. I do NOT think it was a cultural thing, though I should acknowledge (and disclaim?) that the lab I supported was located in a country with a reputation for copying and improving rather than innovating...
Trivial example of a useful innovation that no one has apparently thought of yet: Why isn't there any Android app to turn off the sound for a period of time or on a regular schedule? At least I haven't been able to find one. I already know the answer as regards that research lab: Not likely to generate a patent.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
https://play.google.com/store/...
You are welcome
It sounds like the summary is trying to make a philosophical argument that diversity directly leads to creativity. Any individual, even 'the best', might have tunnel-vision on their purported 'best solution', whereas another person playing devil's advocate may point out other possibilities. A group of people can do a brainstorming session. However, it'd be unfair to harp on tunnel-vision of an individual without also mentioning the potential problem of groupthink, which I'd imagine would be actually more likely if one member of a group is particularly more respected/powerful than the other members. However, even if every member is 'the best' in their field, one narcissistic individual can overpower other members equally as qualified, due to impostor syndrome, leading to the same result.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Now we produce least offensive politically correct ethnically sensitive and biologicall empathetic protocols. And we apply these to every sub category. That produces research that has titles like, " why hiring the "best" people produces the least creative results"
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This article doesn't make any sense.
How about this advice.
Hire the best people. Have them drop their egos at the door. Put them in a room to solve a problem and you will get an optimal, well though out, creative solution.
"The Smartest Person in the Room, Is the Room."
Hire a diverse, mediocre team. Put them in a room and have them drop their egos at the door. You will get a sub-optimal solution because they struggle.
Top Performers attract Top Performers. Low Performers attract Low Performers.
If I need a surgical team, I want the best.
If I need a life saving ER team, I want the best.
If I need a legal defense team, I want the best.
If I need an oncologist team, I want the best.
If I need someone to do work on my car, I want the best team.
If I need someone to manage my finances, I want the best team.
If I need to build a BFR (Falcon Heavy) and launch aTesla roadster into space, I need the best team to figure it out.
If I need to write mission critical code, I want the best team.
"The Best" can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people and be ranked in a variety of ways. To me the best is people who are really good at what they do, can work with other really good people to craft amazing solutions, and care more about good products and outcomes than their own ego.
"The Smartest Person in the Room, Is the Room."
Look for the person who could study. Who had the ability to learn how to study.
Who can be given something new and learn that new method to a good standard.
Thats a skill that takes years of quality education.
Why risk a company, a brand with people who will need "support" due to complex past "issues".
Skilled staff within a company, brand will then have to take time away from their productive, profitable projects to offer support and guidance to below average workers.
A should seek out the best educated workers who can work hard on project that move the brand forward. Not looking after below average workers all day, everyday.
A brand and company is not some place of further education for well below average workers who have no skills.
Look into the past of all people seeking work. Did they study hard, past their exams, tests, show up to their lab work, have a good attitude to study?
Did they spend a lot of time becoming politically active on campus rather than working hard on the course work?
Be aware of educational systems that social advance graduates for political reasons and for virtue signalling to other academics.
Find the people who passed on merit and who have usable skills.
Is their past work littered with poor work quality and complex legal problems?
Why should their issues become a reputation problem for a later brand?
Avoid below average workers, their many problems, their lack of ability to study, their lack of ability to learn.
The reason why a top brand wants the best is every aspect of their tech changes every few years. Staff who cant keep up due to not been able to learn new skills not going to be able to be productive.
A skill for music, art, sport, spoken languages is great for related employment in arts, music, sport.
Been able to keep up with all changes in tech and study new tech skills is a skill worth looking for in staff.
Support a charity for people who need support, don't have the brand become a charity with the best staff having to support new full time workers who cannot be productive.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I don't know if Xerox PARC really succeeded though. They seemed to have a research group that they left alone to do whatever they wanted to do, but no one in charge who actually understood what any of it was worth. As a company, they basically missed the boat on the computer revolution. They basically gave away the game to Apple and Jobs knew a good idea when he saw one and knew what needed to be done to refine it into something that he could get people to line up to buy. PARC was responsible for a lot of things as well, but often it was someone else's implementation of them that became far more successful.
Microsoft, I think suffered from problems on the opposite end of the spectrum. Gates and the higher-ups at Microsoft had some idea of where the company needed to go, but often were too heavy-handed in terms of what they demanded and there was always a desire to try to shoehorn new products into their existing products to grow their monopoly and that often stifled creativity or just outright ruined those products. Long before the iPad, Microsoft was showing off tablets and Gates was talking about how they were going to be the next big thing. However, one of the idiots in charge of the Windows division insisted that the tablet OS be the same as the desktop version of Windows, start menu and all even though it made no sense.
The architecture profession has never emphasized grades, realizing that creative design is hardly measurable. There are a lot of successful practitioners with hardly notable academic backgrounds. Who cares if they got good grades if they can produce a great building? It is a stark contrast to the helicopter parent types that force their kids through heavy science and math curriculum, while totally omitting relaxed, creative, and intuition growing explorations that aren't as easily measured.
I'm glad to hear Amazon eschews MBA types, but I'd like to hear of other business grasping the value of a design approach. We've mistakenly use the word "success" for business that make a lot of money, but I see it defined by the usefulness of solutions, individual growth of their employees, long term (>25 years) contributions to their communities, strong consumer reputation, safety and durability of their products, and a noble reputation across several continents. It's a scam that a phone becomes unusable after three years. Is that how we define a successful company?!
Fortunately, the US is still hanging on to a culture that encourages scrappy, non-linear entrepreneurship. I'm frustrated by universities that value grades above creativity, and the current trend where our youth have to compete on such shallow metrics. (Against youth raised by helicopter parents from other cultures with no other purpose than to have the highest GPA.) Fortunately, these are short term problems and creativity triumphs in the long view. It always will. And that's the original American way. But I wonder why so many businesses grow out of this skill to their ultimate decline?
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
... is not the same as wild honey.
This piece is a whole lotta words that convey precisely nothing more than horse shit in a garage.
Some teams work and some don't.
Mostly, it's character that builds good teams.
Members can drive other members.
Like a hit song, team performance is impossible to predict.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Well, at least we know where to turn when we want to hire a specialist in clumsy, run-on, long-form mixed metaphors.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Who is going to accomplish more interesting things, a competent person who lacks confidence or an incompetent person who has lots of confidence? The former will do safe things very well but they'll never take any risks. The latter will often fail spectacularly but may from time to time hit upon things that other people in the field would have thought would never work. They will however need competent people around them to actually turn it into reality.
A prime example would be the success of Game of Thrones. The showrunners Benioff and Weiss had zero experience at producing a television show. Yet they succeeded at getting permission from George RR Martin to adapt his work where many others had failed. They succeeded because everyone else knew that in order to make anything from the books they had to focus on only a small part of the story and drop the rest. To do the whole story was impossible. But B & W didn't know it was impossible. They didn't know what they didn't know, so they weren't afraid to try to do the impossible. Then they made a pilot and by their own admission it was horrible. It had to be almost completely redone. Their second attempt however turned into one of the most successful shows in history. I would argue though that as they have become more experienced the show has actually gotten worse. It's become more like everything else Hollywood produces, just with a bigger budget than other tv shows. It shows they aren't exceptional producers or writers. They were just in the right place at the right time and didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
Ideally you'd like to have people that are both competent and confident. But I think the point the article tries to make is just that if the goal is creativity and you can tolerate failures then you don't just want a bunch of people who test well and have no failures on their records just because they never tried anything they could actually fail at.
Reminds me of the super chicken ted talk... Very interesting talk about why you don't want a group of "Best" people...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What a surprise, Scott E Page, a political scientist dealing in diversity.
The entire summary and article is a wonderful example of purposeful conflation.
The best teams use different skill-sets and viewpoints to compliment each other. Dare I use that word? "Synergy".
However, selecting and coordinating a well-tuned staff like that is not easy. Good managers are rare. They have to know the corporate kiss-up game, but also relate to and understand technical people and their work.
Table-ized A.I.
So they want people from different fields. I imagine they still want the best of different fields.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Once you evaluate this you may come to some conclusions.
Seems to me the chief flaw in this argument is the definition of "best". In this context it is another word like "fair", which means something different to each reader. If you pick the people who best fit the needs of the job you are being sensible and have the best chance of achieving the results described by the "needs". If you hire the best people in a field with no other criteria you get runaway primadonna-ism. If you hire the people in a field who best work with their peers you may get a solution; but, it may be pedestrian. You need the best people in the field who can work together and work creatively if you want serious innovation. So "best" is an inadequate word without modifiers. So this whole article is "fullabaloney".
{^_^}
Last year at work I got to do a character test which turned to be surprisingly accurate. The interesting thing was that the HR was trying to convince the management to take the character profiles in mind when assembling teams (and all this had nothing to do with modern HR diversity strategies - they were honestly trying to improve performance). It is quite sensible really - in my own case I had already paired with a colleague who in my opinion brought traits that I lack and vice versa - the test caught that splendidly. So perhaps we can rely on something measurable?
Creativity as far as I know is still a mystery. There are claims of a correlation between it and character traits but it is not so easy. For example the test "big 5" of JBP's lab finds correlation between trait "openness" and creativity. I scored 93 percentile. And I've never done something big and creative although on a small, everyday scale I have received plenty of comments over the years like "now creative, I would never think to do it this way!". But I know myself well enough to realize that something else must matter too, something that prevents me applying that creativity for something important. Am I too anxious and thus afraid to try my ideas? Am I bad at planning and following through? Are there people who have the best of both worlds - creative and at the same time orderly (interestingly high openness predicts liberal political bias, high orderliness - conservative. Can anyone be both?). Surely in history we have examples of such exceptional individuals but how rare are they?
Would it work then to pair open extroverts with orderly introverts? Would they be able to work together or the difference in style would prove too much of a hurdle?
In conclusion my feeling is that big data/machine learning used responsibly can be very helpful in this matter. Because it seems that the system is complicated enough so that traditional approach might never catch an odd ball correlation like the one that creative people are born mostly in summer (this is fake fact, I thought it up as an illustration); whereas the algorithm will catch it even though you still have to look for causation and explanation (if any).
What does this guy want to say? The tl;dr of the article: it's impossible to say who's best, and companies try to hire people for varied positions, because that's good, and yet some people hire based on tests, and that's self evidently not the best.
Or to put what the writer says another way: I'm not really one of those analytical types who intends to think of a solution, or actually get to the bottom of an issue, but I have a notion and some irrelevant anecdotes, that would make for a splendid article. And you know, even if I'm not the best, you should hire me, because hiring the best isn't the best.
I read TFA looking for the point. It seems the author has never actually built anything, and maybe doesn't understand how people outside of universities actually function.
There is, undoubtedly, a "best" person for a given job, and it is trivially simple to understand that a paper resume or academic ranking is not sufficient to gauge whether that person is the "best" for the position.
Ok, reading the article again just to see if I'm missing something... this article is simply a complete waste of time full of inaccuracies and vague opinion.
Even the ancient Romans understood the social, economic, and political impact of the roads they built all over Europe.
We have always understood those things and as time goes forward so have we. Law professors study social impacts of passing new laws and how you can and can't change society by laws.
I get the feeling that the author isn't very well educated and then just had a epiphany he thought nobody had thought of before him.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I have found that explaining things to a trainee, discussing an inquisitive one who wants to know why things are fine a certain way helps you see possible improvements. Also when I was at university I totally messed up a maths problem, where I should have made a simple substitution I tried attaching the whole integration by parts, and ended up with complexity that was behind my ability. My tutor got very excited about my mistake, completed the "wrong method" and said that it was a proof of some sort of equivalence that was new to him.
I think you [Wizardess] are talking to me, but I can't figure out where you think what you wrote is supposed to be related to what I wrote, especially when you introduced the word "fair" in some relationship to "best". It also seems that you may have changed your context and are making a different reference to the original article at the end of your comment, in which case your criticism or attack is going in some other direction.
You didn't ask for any clarification, but I will. Do you know what a "paradigm" is? Or perhaps you could clarify what you think I was talking about with "Real innovation"? Or perhaps you have an alternative definition for "best people" that is not related to mastery of any paradigm?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
That you shouldn't choose the best person for the job sound like something the worst people would say .. .. as for not being able to figure out whom is the best; sure.
But to claim that the best can't be creative and that you're better of with people who are subjectively worse at the task? ..
Changing paradigms is easy enough to do if you have the business experience to know better.
This article is full of so many flawed assumptions, it's hard to know where to begin.
"The multidimensional or layered character of complex problems also undermines the principle of meritocracy"
This is a steaming pile of dung.
Believers in a meritocracy might grant that teams ought to be diverse but then argue that meritocratic principles should apply within each category. Thus the team should consist of the ‘best’ mathematicians, the ‘best’ oncologists, and the ‘best’ biostatisticians from within the pool.
That position suffers from a similar flaw. Even with a knowledge domain, no test or criteria applied to individuals will produce the best team. Each of these domains possesses such depth and breadth, that no test can exist.
Bullshit. If you're unable to identify the best, then you're a failure at managing your team. Part of being a good leader is knowing who knows what, and who's good at what, and when you need to bring in help. At the top level, no matter how complex the problem, someone has the big picture. They don't need to know the details of the problem, they need to know that they've got the best people they can addressing those details. The article makes the broad claim that no test can exist without any evidence to back it up.
Upwards of 50,000 papers were published last year covering various techniques, domains of enquiry and levels of analysis, ranging from molecules and synapses up through networks of neurons. Given that complexity, any attempt to rank a collection of neuroscientists from best to worst, as if they were competitors in the 50 meter butterfly, must fail.
Sigh, using as extreme of an example as you can find doesn't make meritocracy a failure, nor undermine it. That said, all 50,000 of those papers will likely be peer reviewed, and to a certain degree ranked, and referenced by other papers, or debunked.
.
Just another day in Paradise
The best team is composed of people who,when taken in total, have all the requisite specialized knowledge and insight to analyze a problem and develop an optimal solution. It is hard to determine in advance who those people are.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The article's author argues that you shouldn't hire the objectively "best" person for the specific job but rather hire the person who adds the most diverse knowledge to the team. But isn't the person who adds the most to the team objectively the best person for the job?
The author goes on to describe hiring processes I've never seen in 30 years of interviewing, working and hiring. Ranking resumes with analytics? Rankable multiple choice skill tests during or as a prelude to the interview? Do these things exist? In companies that actually stay in business?
I say they do not. The author creates a straw man to argue his point about diversity in hiring. That logical fallacy contaminates his conclusion.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I can't think of any "music by committee" that's any good. A couple people working together in a band? Sure... but today's pop music is not a beacon of imagination. Perhaps diversity means throwing in some rap in the middle of an R&B song.
No, you don't want diversity. When a company is faced with extremely difficult tasks and insane deadlines, the last thing you want is diversity (and I don't mean diversity in the sense of skin color). You want the strongest, most experienced team you can possibly put together. Every member has to be strong in several areas. Every member has to be willing to work long hours, go in nights and weekends, whatever it takes. To accept less is to plan for failure.
Been there, done that, got the scars and t-shirt to prove it.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Real innovation involves changing paradigms, and every definition of "best people" is based on the mastery of those people based on existing paradigms. There is only a partial exemption for people who become famous for creating new paradigms to solve important problems, but they were NOT recognized as "best" until AFTERWARDS. More often, they spend most of their lives fighting against the old paradigms. (Any better sources than The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn? It's a classic, but old.)
Anecdotal evidence, but I spent many years supporting a highly prestigious research lab, and I didn't see much that I would regard as real innovation. Mostly a stream of minor refinements hammered into patents with the support of skilled lawyers and even though most of them should have failed on the obviousness test. I do NOT think it was a cultural thing, though I should acknowledge (and disclaim?) that the lab I supported was located in a country with a reputation for copying and improving rather than innovating...
Trivial example of a useful innovation that no one has apparently thought of yet: Why isn't there any Android app to turn off the sound for a period of time or on a regular schedule? At least I haven't been able to find one. I already know the answer as regards that research lab: Not likely to generate a patent.
True innovation and success is a random search. So many things have to line up exactly at the right time at the right place.
Humans want to see patterns and find them. Most of them fail statistical tests.
A few rules are true but there are so many false ones our there.
Microsoft, I think suffered from problems on the opposite end of the spectrum. Gates and the higher-ups at Microsoft had some idea of where the company needed to go, but often were too heavy-handed in terms of what they demanded
Microsoft typically has demanded too little from its employees. What made Jobs-era Apple and Second Jobs-era Apple great was that Jobs was totally willing to apply any amount of pressure to get a job done. He had vision and was willing to commit to being a dick to people to see it come to fruition. I wouldn't want to work for the guy, but I can admire the products he fathered along. Gates, on the other hand, just wanted to control everything. I presume he felt that this would guarantee Microsoft a place, like IBM. This did pan out to a large degree, but the world is changing. It's easier and easier to change vendors, in spite of Microsoft's (and Gates') best efforts.
Microsoft has a long history of half-assing things, and being carried by their effective monopoly position.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Very much the start up model.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Every scientist I ever met was part of a team, go see how many papers have co-authors.
Then add in contributions by grad students and you get a large number of people contributing to the research.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Well, I work in an industry where everyone hires the best. And by best, I mean highest keyword score matching fake resume for a employee who is different from the one who interviewed who is willing to work for 60K a year.
Google stopped being innovative a long time ago. Whatever they're doing isn't really working. Google now copies everybody else's innovation, from VR to Alexa.
According to the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley, Jobs stole it but then Gates told Jobs, "we stole it first!" so who knows.
The reality though is less exciting of a story; researchers broadly understood for decades that the future would have graphical interfaces. People were surprised by them only because they didn't think the hardware was advanced enough yet. That caused a lot of companies to not notice their own engineers making important implementations. It gets confused as if they were discoveries, which really shows how hard it would have been for the business people to see what was happening in time to cash it out.
Changing paradigms is easy enough to do if you have the business experience to know better.
And that's why it happens all the time. Not.
Most people can't see the boxes they are trapped in and are therefore unlikely to get outside of it. Even worse, most of the businesses that try anything even slightly different fail. Serial wannabe innovators are actually surprisingly common, notwithstanding both those constraints. Successful serial innovators? Not so much.
My problem appears to be that I can't figure out what is supposed to be the box. I seem to have suffered some sort of zen breakdown or collapse, and everything is on top of everything else, but none of it matters much to me. The world will continue changing as it wishes and I don't even feel much reaction when my predictions or suggestions are "resolved" in either direction.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I think I agree with you about the randomness component of the success part, but not so much as regards innovation. The long-term average is for things to get better (though paid for in entropy dollars and time). It's just that from our short-term perspectives things do look rather random. To paraphrase MLK, the arc of progress is long, but it bends toward reality. (However I might be wrong believe that there is such a thing as reality?)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I guess I only saw the successful ones then. But in general the team player seems to e more common in my experience.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Only one mispronunciation from a different set of criteria.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
> a biotech company such as Gilead or Genentech would not construct a multiple-choice test and hire the top scorers
Who would be idiotic enough to select *any* skilled professional based upon a multiple-choice test?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw
Casteism