Dr P Sarat Chandra Articles | Internet Growth Engine: the startup interface

By
Dr (Prof) P Sarat Chandra
Prof. and Head of the department
Neurosurgery and Gamma knife
AIIMS, New Delhi

Human societies function best not when individuals are identical, but when diverse individuals cooperate toward shared goals. Research in psychology, neuroscience, and social sciences shows that diversity within a cooperative system strengthens adaptability, creativity, and resilience, whereas enforced uniformity often leads to rigidity, conflict, and reduced innovation.

The concept of sameness refers to the expectation that individuals should think, behave, and respond in identical ways. However, biological systems, including the human brain, are inherently diverse. Variations in personality, cognition, emotional processing, and social behavior arise from differences in genetics, developmental experiences, and neural circuitry. Attempts to enforce sameness often conflict with this natural variability and may lead to interpersonal tension and social fragmentation.

In contrast, oneness can be understood scientifically as coordinated cooperation among diverse individuals working toward a shared objective. Complex adaptive systems—such as ant colonies, bee colonies, or human societies—demonstrate that specialization and diversity of roles improve survival and efficiency. Individual members perform different tasks, yet collectively contribute to a unified purpose.

Social psychology research suggests that shared goals promote cohesion even among diverse individuals, a phenomenon described as superordinate goals. When people focus on common objectives rather than identical behavior or beliefs, cooperation increases and conflict decreases.

Neuroscience also supports the value of diversity in cognitive processing. Different neural networks and cognitive styles allow groups to solve complex problems more effectively than homogenous groups. Studies in organizational psychology show that cognitively diverse teams outperform uniform teams in innovation and decision-making, provided they share a common goal.

Thus, the strength of human systems lies not in enforcing sameness, but in aligning diverse individuals toward shared purposes while respecting differences in perspectives, roles, and behaviors.

In essence, cooperation without uniformity—diversity within unity—is a hallmark of resilient biological and social systems.

⸻

Key References

Page SE. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press, 2007.
Sherif M, Harvey OJ, White BJ, Hood WR, Sherif CW. Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. University of Oklahoma Book Exchange, 1961.
Woolley AW et al. Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science. 2010;330:686–688.
Hong L, Page SE. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). 2004;101(46):16385–16389.
Nowak MA. Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. Science. 2006;314:1560–1563.
Seeley TD. Honeybee Democracy. Princeton University Press, 2010.
West SA, Griffin AS, Gardner A. Evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Current Biology. 2007;17:R661–R672.

By
Dr (Prof) P Sarat Chandra
Prof. and Head of the department
Neurosurgery and Gamma knife
AIIMS, New Delhi

Human beings are deeply conditioned to seek closure. From childhood, our education, storytelling traditions, and cultural narratives reinforce the belief that life unfolds in orderly sequences culminating in satisfying endings. Finish the exam and life will settle. Secure the job and fulfilment will follow. Marry the right person and happiness will be permanent. Our films conclude with “happily ever after,” where good triumphs over evil and conflicts are neatly resolved. Closure is presented not merely as an outcome, but as a psychological necessity — a final resting place for the restless mind.

Yet this longing for enclosure may be one of the mind’s most subtle illusions.

Psychologically, the mind seeks certainty because certainty creates a sense of safety. Neuroscience suggests that ambiguity activates threat responses in the brain, while predictability reduces anxiety. The human mind is designed to minimize uncertainty; it prefers completed patterns over unfinished ones. This is reflected in the Zeigarnik effect — the observation that unfinished tasks occupy more mental space than completed ones. Closure relieves this internal tension. It offers the reassuring impression that something has been secured, resolved, and brought under control.

But such relief is fleeting.

No sooner is one goal achieved than another emerges. The job leads to the next promotion. Marriage introduces new responsibilities. Financial stability gives rise to fresh ambitions. What we call closure is rarely an ending; it is merely a transition within a larger unfolding. Heraclitus observed that one cannot step into the same river twice — everything flows, everything changes. Modern evolutionary biology and systems theory affirm this insight, viewing life not as a sequence of endpoints but as adaptive processes in continuous transformation.

Philosophy and spirituality have long challenged the notion of finality. Existential thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre described human beings not as finished entities, but as ongoing projects. Yet even the idea of “becoming” can subtly suggest movement toward a final state of completion. Eastern philosophical traditions, particularly Buddhism, emphasize impermanence (anicca) as a fundamental characteristic of existence. Nothing remains fixed; nothing concludes in permanence.

The issue is not with goals themselves. Goals provide direction and motivation. The difficulty arises when goals are mistaken for ultimate resolution. The mind whispers, “Once this happens, I will finally be secure.” Yet security built upon outcomes is inherently fragile, because outcomes themselves are transient.

In reality, closure does not truly exist. Life is an evolving continuum. Relationships evolve. Careers evolve. Identities evolve. Societies evolve. Educational systems evolve — or at least they must.

Unfortunately, the very foundation of our education and job-oriented training systems is built upon the promise of closure. Study hard, complete the course, secure the degree, obtain the job — and you will have arrived. This linear model may have served a slower-moving world. But in an era shaped by rapid technological advancement, global interdependence, and constant disruption, such thinking is increasingly inadequate.

Education must move beyond the myth of finality. Rather than training individuals to “finish” and settle, it should cultivate adaptability, resilience, creativity, and comfort with continuous change. Learners must be prepared not for static careers, but for evolving pathways. Not for certainty, but for intelligent engagement with uncertainty.

A process-oriented mindset fosters psychological flexibility. When life is understood as unfolding rather than concluding, setbacks are no longer seen as failures of completion but as natural movements within growth. The emphasis shifts from arriving somewhere to being fully present and responsive within what is.

Great spiritual teachings consistently point toward this insight. They suggest that even “becoming” can be another strategy of the mind — a projection into a future state that promises fulfillment. Being, however, is immediate. It is not something to be achieved; it is the living reality of the present moment.

Seeking closure may offer temporary psychological comfort. Recognizing life as an ever-evolving process offers something far deeper: freedom. Nothing truly ends; it transforms. When our understanding aligns with this truth, anxiety about unfinished chapters softens. We begin to participate consciously in the vast, dynamic movement of existence — not striving to conclude it, but learning to move with it.

Homeschooling Everyone Homemploying Everywhere