> It feels like that's the obvious goal of collaboration in general... People of differing views coming together to make a more complete view. Is that wrong?

This is how I see it and how I've always seen those "diversity improves success" works. I mean no one (serious) is suggesting it is a genetic difference but rather cultural, and thus different points of view.

But per your quote, the way I see to implement this is rather to have lower stakes. Competition happens no matter what. You get competitive with your friends when playing videogames, sports, or even stupid shit like a literal pissing contest. That's all fun and you can see people get creative and explore strategies in those situations. But there's one thing notable, there isn't any real cheating and when it does happen it's more done jokingly and not hidden. Often a jab at some exploitation of the rules (which helps update rule sets). On the other hand, when the stakes are high (say in situations like grades, job applications/leet code, money, etc) then you're actively incentivized to cheat. But people are not going to be open here about that cheating. (It also seems to lead to a lot of fighting and bad outcomes like the squeaky wheel getting the grease -- complaining loudly gets action while doing work quiet doesn't, unfortunately)

Idk if we can really get away from these high stakes games until we reach a post scarce society, but certainly there are frameworks we have now where this can be done. In academics, jobs, and such. We just need to reframe our thinking, which is far easier said than done.