4 ms·

imho it's baked into anglo individualist enlightenment philosophy - if there is no dogmatic truth, and individuals are allowed to make their own decision, you a

by cat199 8y ago

imho it's baked into anglo individualist enlightenment philosophy - if there is no dogmatic truth, and individuals are allowed to make their own decision, you are being an overarching papist to insist that there is a right way, and further more that we should listen to it. so instead, 'be nice', because 'respecting others opinions' (even if delusional) is the true virtue besides, insisting on a 'correct way' for the group means that individualism itself is flawed, and so is therefore heretical..

bilbo0s 8y ago
That's not QUITE it. The issue is that everyone is insisting that there is a DIFFERENT "right" way. So of the 30 or 40 "right" ways in a group of 30 or 40 people, there has to be some system for settling on 1 "right" way. So what ensues, without anyone consciously realizing it, is almost an election. Where the group settles on one "right" way. And any holdouts are said to be difficult intransigent people. It's a bit like a court jury. All 12 jurors actually have their own opinion. But over time, they select one opinion as the consensus opinion. The reason for selecting that opinion can be different for each juror, but any juror not accepting the consensus opinion would be considered a hold out. I'd even wager that the other jurors would just as soon not be on a jury with the hold outs in the future. Having mentioned all that, the material point here is that every initial opinion in the group can be "wrong". The consensus opinion is only the opinion that the group promotes as its own. Being the consensus opinion doesn't mean that it's correct, anymore than being a dissenting opinion means that the dissenting opinion is correct. It's entirely possible, in fact oftentimes likely, that both opinions are "wrong".
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  It isn't quite like that. Any decisionmaking process in a group has to be anchored in observable reality, you can't make it a popularity context. You recognize the trouble when you teach at university, students don't know how to reason and make cogent arguments.
- mnctvanj 8y ago
  This is correct. Consensus opinion might not be the very best of all the possibilities, but is rarely a very bad choice. The other side of this is buy-in. On a great team, it's important to have everyone feel free to put forth an opinion, with backup. And then this process happens. And then it's just as important for everyone to "murder the un-chosen alternative" - in other words, even if a team member very strongly believes their posited solution was correct, and very strongly believes the chosen solution is incorrect - they must murder their solution, and wed the chosen solution. A team, committed as a team, to the team-chosen alternatives over time, is a very powerful team. Likely more powerful than one that only chooses the objectively best solution without full buy-in from the rest of the team. It takes hard and nuanced work from the team leader to cultivate this.

by cat199 8y ago

bilbo0s 8y ago

That's not QUITE it. The issue is that everyone is insisting that there is a DIFFERENT "right" way. So of the 30 or 40 "right" ways in a group of 30 or 40 people, there has to be some system for settling on 1 "right" way. So what ensues, without anyone consciously realizing it, is almost an election. Where the group settles on one "right" way. And any holdouts are said to be difficult intransigent people. It's a bit like a court jury. All 12 jurors actually have their own opinion. But over time, they select one opinion as the consensus opinion. The reason for selecting that opinion can be different for each juror, but any juror not accepting the consensus opinion would be considered a hold out. I'd even wager that the other jurors would just as soon not be on a jury with the hold outs in the future. Having mentioned all that, the material point here is that every initial opinion in the group can be "wrong". The consensus opinion is only the opinion that the group promotes as its own. Being the consensus opinion doesn't mean that it's correct, anymore than being a dissenting opinion means that the dissenting opinion is correct. It's entirely possible, in fact oftentimes likely, that both opinions are "wrong".

HarryHirsch 8y ago
It isn't quite like that. Any decisionmaking process in a group has to be anchored in observable reality, you can't make it a popularity context. You recognize the trouble when you teach at university, students don't know how to reason and make cogent arguments.
mnctvanj 8y ago
This is correct. Consensus opinion might not be the very best of all the possibilities, but is rarely a very bad choice. The other side of this is buy-in. On a great team, it's important to have everyone feel free to put forth an opinion, with backup. And then this process happens. And then it's just as important for everyone to "murder the un-chosen alternative" - in other words, even if a team member very strongly believes their posited solution was correct, and very strongly believes the chosen solution is incorrect - they must murder their solution, and wed the chosen solution. A team, committed as a team, to the team-chosen alternatives over time, is a very powerful team. Likely more powerful than one that only chooses the objectively best solution without full buy-in from the rest of the team. It takes hard and nuanced work from the team leader to cultivate this.