other dimensions of diversity – cognitive and experiential. the evidence suggests these confer societal benefits every bit as great as identity. indeed, diversity of thought and experience go the very heart of decision - making diversity. moreover, because these dimensions are less well - recognised and harder to measure, unconscious biases around them may be harder to detect and correct. that underscores the importance of purposive action to move the diversity dial in these directions. ( a ) cognitive diversity cognitive diversity is far from easy to define and measure. it is stored between our ears in an organ which, despite recent neuro - scientific advances, remains largely a black ( or grey ) box. a second reason is that it is clearly multi - faceted, including diversity of perspectives, interpretations, heuristics and predictive models. 62 it comprises not just technical problemsolving, in an iq sense, but also social and interpersonal problem - solving, in the eq sense. together, these comprise an individual ’ s cognitive toolbox. recognising even that this toolbox exists, and what might lie inside, is a useful first step. work by sociologists, psychologists and neuro - scientists has, over recent decades, shone a light on these wide - ranging cognitive competencies, their implications for behaviour and their source. yet this evidence is only now beginning to percolate into the workplace, much less into wider society. let me give an example. a recent article in the economist discussed whether autism is adequately recognised and rewarded in the workplace. 63 it is well - known that those with autism often have an above - average ability to spot patterns and errors, to conduct repeated tasks with high levels of accuracy and to concentrate for lengthy periods. indeed, given these cognitive gifts, it has been claimed that half of the innovators in silicon valley have asperger ’ s syndrome, a form of autism. 64 yet when it comes to the world of education and work, these gifts appear largely to have gone unrecognised and unrewarded. in the uk, only 12 % of high - functioning autistic adults are in work. globally, the united nations estimate that 80 % of those with autism are not in the workplace. even once in work, the skills and performance of autistic adults may not be properly recognised and rewarded. in the workplace, as in wider society, we are some distance from recognising the true potential of

that was a decision for the people of the uk. it has led to a reduction in the openness of the uk economy, though over time new trading relationships around the world should, and i expect will, be established. of course, that requires a commitment to openness and free trade. 1 / 4 bis - central bankers'speeches to sum up this part of the story : we have moved from a state of affairs where the orthodoxy was to open up the world economy, to increase trade flows, and increase the flows of finance to support this trade. in doing so, yes there was an increase in interlinkages and dependencies around the world economy. some of those interlinkages turned out to be less resilient than we had expected. we can't ignore that for the sake of free trade idealism, because the threats that are behind it are sadly real. but, nor must we give up on openness. diversifying supply chains to increase resilience does not need to involve protectionism. let me end this part of my remarks on a note of optimism. recently, as part of my regular visits around the country, i was in newry in northern ireland meeting firms and schools. it was a most enjoyable day, and i came away with a real sense of optimism of businesses taking up the opportunities of open economies. this conference is about the financial system, so in the rest of my remarks i am going to focus on openness in the world of financial services. the theme will however be the same, openness is a good thing. but in the world of regulated industries, we have to set out carefully what we mean and how it works. just as reducing openness does the same thing to economic growth, so fragmentation damages financial markets. but it doesn't just reduce the size of markets, it makes them inherently less stable. fragmentation is a risk to financial stability. put simply, large markets and their infrastructures, which are run safely and to high standards, will support rather than endanger financial stability. a very good example of this is clearing and central counterparties. fragmenting this type of market infrastructure creates rather than reduces risks in markets. it also increases the cost of market functioning. i want to focus a little bit on the point about whether there is, or is not, good reason to restrict and fragment. inevitably, with such financial infrastructures, they have to be located in a single place, and become the responsibility of that