The School of X

A few weeks ago the San Francisco Foundation[1] and Grants for the Arts hosted a wonderful conference: Dynamic Adaptability - A Conference on New Thinking and New Strategies for the Arts.  There were many notable speakers; one in particular had the attendees talking about his keynote long after he left the stage. 

Jonah Lehrer is a neuroscientist, author, and currently a contributing editor at Wired.  Among the fascinating anecdotes he shared with the audience was an account of two groups trying to solve a lab problem involving E. coli proteins.  One group, (Group A) was composed exclusively by E. coli experts; the other group (Group B) was comprised of biochemists, molecular biologists, geneticists and medical school students. 

Lehrer described how the E. coli experts took a brute-force approach to the problem, which took them several weeks to resolve.  The multi-disciplinary group, by contrast, solved the problem in 10 minutes.  According to Lehrer, members the multi-disciplinary group were forced to communicate through metaphor and analogies that resulted in assumptions being challenged and new ideas to surface. 

Visiting Lehrer's blog to learn more, he summarizes the E. coli lesson as follows:

Having to explain the problem to someone else forced them to think, if only for a moment, like an intellectual on the margins, filled with self-skepticism.

The lesson is that the process of discovery benefits from our differences, from the disagreements and contradictions that arise when people with different assumptions discuss the same data. When everyone agrees, or has the same academic background, then the stubbornness is reinforced. The theory doesn't change. The School of X - and it doesn't matter what X is - remains tethered to its dusty preconceptions. The failure never leads to a better answer.

 Convergence & the Tenderloin Arts Advisory Group

At last fall's meeting at the Luggage Store Gallery we began to see the adoption of Group B's approach.  Economic development staff, art organizations, developers, entrepreneurs, property owners, and financing experts all converged to compare notes and ideas on the goal of revitalizing the Tenderloin and mid-Market area.  Since that meeting we have seen a greater degree of collaboration between city hall, property owners and nonprofit experts in all of these disciplines.   

And then there's the Tenderloin Arts Advisory Group which provides valuable feedback and suggestions to TEDP to help guide its work.  The group is comprised of affordable housing developers, social service agencies, youth organizations, the community benefits district, and, yes, art organizations!  Over the past year the group has moved beyond simplistic perspectives (Slum Lords! Poverty Pimps! Gentrifying artists! Anti-poor people capitalists! Etc.)  and in the process discovered a common interest in serving the community. 

Differences remain of course, and the arts have given us a valuable mechanism to explore them.  But we are beginning to recognize the Tenderloin is in many respects a manifestation of Group A's approach.   Attempts to solve the community's problems via any one discipline - affordable housing, social service programs - have failed.   And it is probably safe to assume that any new attempt to solve the community's problem by a blunt-force approach to economic development will likewise also fail. 

We have high hopes that through sharing our differences, disagreements and contradictions we can make progress toward making the Tenderloin a vibrant and livable community, even if it will take us longer than 10 minutes. 

Cheers,

Elvin

 

_____________________

[1] TEDP is fortunate to receive support from the SF Foundation.