Diversity Means "Cognitive Diversity" (Diversity of Thought)

Matthew Syed's book Rebel Ideas Matthew Syed’s Rebel Ideas is a really clear explanation of why, when we emphasize the importance of “diversity” for problem solving, cognitive diversity is what we are after.

Most people simply assume “demographic” diversity (race, gender, class, university affiliation or class rank) does the trick.

It does not, if the demographically-diverse individuals all were trained the same way; in the same disciplines; by the same teachers.

And, to elaborate, the advantages of “people who think differently” is important for tackling complex problems, not every problem.

Sometimes such diversity is not necessary. When attempting to deliver humans safely to Mars and getting them back just as safely, there likely are limits to even cognitive diversity, as arbitrary diversity of thought might not actually help with the collective solutions we need. Building a hadron collider with cost constraints might not benefit at all from arbitrarily adding team members who are skateboarders, with or without demographic diversity. The diversity has to be relevant to the problem space! Still, when trying to solve complex problems that are not heavily social (where demographic diversity might actually be relevant), cognitive diversity (thinking differently) is expected to be helpful.

Government Shutdowns Inconveniencing the Public are Risky for Politicians

The effort to force reforms of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department by not funding the Department of Homeland Security is an example of using disruptive tactics to create pressure for change.

In this case, disrupting the lives of air travelers trying to get through security checks is the “stick” supporters hope will force changes. But there are always risks when using such strategies. 

The tactic is not new. Strikes, road blockages, legislative brinkmanship, coordinated “sick-outs” impose costs on the public to force attention, reframe urgency, or shift bargaining leverage. 

Whether they “work” or not depends less on the mechanics of disruption itself and more on public reaction. If opponents can successfully reframe the protesters as selfish or extreme, or if the “broad middle” of the public becomes alienated (even if they might agree with the goals). 

Perhaps the classic examples are labor strikes shutting down production lines. The pain is the point. 

But not all disruption arguably is equally viewed as “legitimate:” 

• Labor union strikes tend to have high legitimacy and are often effective

• Road blockages that cause public disruption carry a high backlash risk

• Legislative disruption (shutdowns, refusal to fund) are high stakes, polarizing and can damage institutional trust.

The calculation of legislative disruption effectiveness always turns, to some degree, on “who gets blamed” for the inconvenience. Government shutdowns provide a prime example. Who gets blamed: the governing party or the obstructionists?

Study / Source	Case	Short-Term Effects (Leverage)	Short-Term Backlash	Long-Term Effects	Key Takeaway
Pew Research Center (2019 shutdown analysis)	2018–2019 US shutdown	Raised salience of border/security debate	58% called shutdown a “very serious problem” (Pew Research Center)	Reinforced partisan divides	Disruption increases attention but deepens polarization
AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (2025 poll)	2025 shutdown	Forces issue visibility across electorate	~90% say shutdown is at least a problem; ~50% call it major (AP-NORC)	Broad erosion of trust	Public overwhelmingly dislikes shutdowns as a tactic
Ipsos (2025 polling)	2025 shutdown	Limited evidence of clear “winner”	“Everyone gets blamed” across parties (Ipsos)	Diffuse accountability weakens gains	Hard to convert disruption into political advantage
ABC News / Washington Post polling	2025 shutdown	Can shift blame temporarily (45% blamed one side) (ABC News)	75% concerned; concern rises over time (ABC News)	Blame stabilizes along partisan lines	Early narrative matters, but effects plateau
Navigator Research (2025 report)	Ongoing shutdown	Awareness jumps dramatically (87% aware) (Navigator Research)	85% concerned by week 6 (Navigator Research)	Fatigue and frustration increase	Prolonged disruption erodes tolerance quickly
Partnership for Public Service (2025 survey)	Early-stage shutdown	Immediate visibility of impact	48% report local community effects (Our Public Service)	Normalizes expectation of dysfunction	Even short disruptions are widely felt
Gallup (post-shutdown 2025)	After shutdown resolution	—	Congressional approval ~17% (Gallup.com)	Sustained institutional damage	Shutdowns depress trust in government broadly
Brookings Institution analysis	General shutdown effects	Short shutdowns create bargaining pressure	Undermine confidence in governance (Brookings)	Limited macroeconomic damage if brief	Political damage > economic damage (short-term)
J.P. Morgan (2025 economic analysis)	43-day shutdown	Can influence policy expectations (Fed, markets) (JPMorgan Chase)	Disrupts data, services, workers	Effects largely temporary economically	Economic harm is real but mostly reversible
Quinnipiac University (2025 poll)	During shutdown	Can shift electoral preferences marginally	High disapproval of both parties (Quinnipiac University Poll)	Weakens incumbents broadly	Political risk is symmetric, not targeted
Americans for Prosperity polling	Shutdown as tactic	—	Voters broadly oppose shutdowns as leverage (Americans for Prosperity)	Incentivizes “governing” over brinkmanship	Public rejects tactic even if issue support exists

The attempt in 2026 to force ICE reforms by causing airport security screening delays has so far resulted in:

• Severe service disruption (airport delays, staff quitting) (Reuters)

• Worker hardship and absenteeism spike (People.com)

• Political stalemate persists despite disruption (The Guardian)

• Tactical “workarounds” (e.g., redeploying staff) fail to resolve underlying conflict (The Washington Post)

At least so far, disruption has created pressure in the form of public inconvenience. But the research suggests the risk. 

Short-term: disruption works, but mostly on attention, not outcomes:

• Awareness jumps dramatically (often >80%)

• Media coverage spikes

• Negotiations may accelerate

• Public concern rises quickly

• Blame is diffuse or unstable

• No consistent evidence of clear “winners”

 Attention is gained, but often not control.

Short-term backlash will be immediate and measurable:

• Large majorities view shutdowns as harmful (often ~75–90%)

• Communities feel impacts within days

• Concern intensifies over time. 

When does winning become losing?

Long term, such disruptions are a negative:

• Trust in government declines (e.g., ~17% approval post-shutdown) (Gallup.com)

• Both parties tend to lose standing

• Polarization increases rather than resolves

Durable support is questionable, as is the longer-lasting political or institutional damage. 

Government shutdowns and similar legislative disruptions force attention and urgency, but are unreliable at producing favorable outcomes in the short term. 

The long-term effects are largely negative, eroding trust in institutions and leaders, increasing future brinkmanship as a negotiating tool and possibly damaging both sides to the disputes.

Legislative disruption is a blunt instrument (raises pressure, but spreads political damage widely and unpredictably). It keeps getting used but rarely produces clean victories.

Some of us might argue that the stakes grow when the pain is caused either by government workers or the government itself. 

It might be one thing for private employees to bargain with private employers using any available means (strikes, boycotts, picketing). In principle, government employees work for the citizenry at large, as their wages and benefits are paid by taxpayers (business and personal payers).

Legislative disruptions might be intended to create political pressure. They do so, but only by causing inconvenience for citizens supposedly served by their government. And there lies the danger.