3 ms·

I keep repeating this everywhere I can because it was such a revelation to me. For literally all my life, I have thought of group debate as a thing where both

by kqr 4y ago

I keep repeating this everywhere I can because it was such a revelation to me. For literally all my life, I have thought of group debate as a thing where both sides try to convince the other of their stupidity, and the debate is only resolved when one side gives up. Then in the middle of a paragraph about something completely different in the condensed version of Robert's Rules, the authors write > Vigorous debate about the merits of a motion is central to the very idea of a deliberative assembly. When the arguments on all sides are fully aired, the group is most likely to come to a wise decision. This is incredibly profound, and it seems like the authors just take it for granted. You debate something so that everyone has heard the complications considered important by the group. Then when it goes to a vote, each person is able to consider this important information and form a judgment of their own. In a group debate, nobody has to (or even should?) change their minds. It’s okay to have different priorities and think different things are best. Debate is not about admitting fault or changing one’s mind – it’s about informing the rest of the group about which arguments one thinks are salient to the judgment.

Digory 4y ago
The model assumes the voters are Bayesian. So, kind of like the efficient markets hypothesis, you have to ask "under what conditions will deliberative debate lead to better decisions?" Because sometimes the group makes the wrong decision.
Ensorceled 4y ago
> In a group debate, nobody has to (or even should?) change their minds. It’s okay to have different priorities and think different things are best. Debate is not about admitting fault or changing one’s mind – it’s about informing the rest of the group about which arguments one thinks are salient to the judgment. This hits at a key problem in dysfunctional companies ... since there is often no clear "right answer" people will do dysfunctional things like delay decision making until there is a clear, unambiguously best choice (which may never happen) or force through their preference because other, better, choices have trade offs.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Back when I was a product manager, no small part of my job seemed to consist of making a decision--ANY decision--so that things could proceed. Often it fairly obviously didn't matter and, even if it somewhat did, there was often no clear way to inform an optimum answer. (Of course, sometimes there was--but it was probably the minority of the time.)
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    Also, a prompt decision can also get the team to the point where the decision is proven wrong and one of the other decisions correct or, as is often the case, a separate best option becomes obvious.
pnathan 4y ago
it also fundamentally incorporates "disagree and commit" as an ethos. there's no need or requirement for consensus for the community to move forward; there's only a need to acknowledge that the community must go one.
lisper 4y ago
> When the arguments on all sides are fully aired, the group is most likely to come to a wise decision. This assumes both sides are acting in good faith and share some common goals. If one side has (say) convinced itself that the the other side is evil and duplicitous then this no longer works because 1) everything the other side says is viewed through the lens of evil and duplicity and 2) this evil and duplicity needs to be combated by any means necessary, up to and including presenting arguments that the first side knows are wrong but which it believes in good faith could allow it to prevail against evil and duplicity. And then there is the meta problem, which is that as soon as one side falls into this hole it typically drags the other side down with it.
- tunesmith 4y ago
  I find this is more likely as the argument gets more abstract. But when two sides are trying to deal with an aspect of reality that is staring them in the face, it's much easier to get practical.
  - lisper 4y ago
    Yeah, that's what I used to think too. But recent events have falsified that hypothesis. It turns out that people can maintain some shockingly deep disagreement about the nature of reality.
    - tunesmith 4y ago
      That's not what I'm talking about - by "staring in the face", I mean aspects of reality that are immediate. Which usually means smaller scale. I agree regarding things like climate change, democracy, and viruses though.
      - lisper 4y ago
        You will find that there is a surprising amount of disagreement over what is actually staring you in the face. Some people will insist that (for example) if you just look around you, any sane person will see irrefutable evidence of intelligent design, and that if you think about this logically you will be led inevitably and irrefutably to the conclusion that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, Jesus is coming Real Soon Now (tm), and in the meantime He has sent Donald Trump to deliver the United States of America from commie pinko liberal atheists. And if you don't accept all of that then there is clearly something wrong with you. There are literally millions if not tens of millions of American voters who at least profess to believe in the substance of what I have just written. Maybe they're all just trolling but I doubt it. I just have a hard time picturing them saying, "Ha ha, April fools! You didn't really think we were serious, did you?"

by kqr 4y ago

Digory 4y ago

The model assumes the voters are Bayesian. So, kind of like the efficient markets hypothesis, you have to ask "under what conditions will deliberative debate lead to better decisions?" Because sometimes the group makes the wrong decision.

Ensorceled 4y ago

> In a group debate, nobody has to (or even should?) change their minds. It’s okay to have different priorities and think different things are best. Debate is not about admitting fault or changing one’s mind – it’s about informing the rest of the group about which arguments one thinks are salient to the judgment. This hits at a key problem in dysfunctional companies ... since there is often no clear "right answer" people will do dysfunctional things like delay decision making until there is a clear, unambiguously best choice (which may never happen) or force through their preference because other, better, choices have trade offs.

ghaff 4y ago
Back when I was a product manager, no small part of my job seemed to consist of making a decision--ANY decision--so that things could proceed. Often it fairly obviously didn't matter and, even if it somewhat did, there was often no clear way to inform an optimum answer. (Of course, sometimes there was--but it was probably the minority of the time.)
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  Also, a prompt decision can also get the team to the point where the decision is proven wrong and one of the other decisions correct or, as is often the case, a separate best option becomes obvious.

pnathan 4y ago

it also fundamentally incorporates "disagree and commit" as an ethos. there's no need or requirement for consensus for the community to move forward; there's only a need to acknowledge that the community must go one.

lisper 4y ago

> When the arguments on all sides are fully aired, the group is most likely to come to a wise decision. This assumes both sides are acting in good faith and share some common goals. If one side has (say) convinced itself that the the other side is evil and duplicitous then this no longer works because 1) everything the other side says is viewed through the lens of evil and duplicity and 2) this evil and duplicity needs to be combated by any means necessary, up to and including presenting arguments that the first side knows are wrong but which it believes in good faith could allow it to prevail against evil and duplicity. And then there is the meta problem, which is that as soon as one side falls into this hole it typically drags the other side down with it.

tunesmith 4y ago
I find this is more likely as the argument gets more abstract. But when two sides are trying to deal with an aspect of reality that is staring them in the face, it's much easier to get practical.
- lisper 4y ago
  Yeah, that's what I used to think too. But recent events have falsified that hypothesis. It turns out that people can maintain some shockingly deep disagreement about the nature of reality.
  - tunesmith 4y ago
    That's not what I'm talking about - by "staring in the face", I mean aspects of reality that are immediate. Which usually means smaller scale. I agree regarding things like climate change, democracy, and viruses though.
    - lisper 4y ago
      You will find that there is a surprising amount of disagreement over what is actually staring you in the face. Some people will insist that (for example) if you just look around you, any sane person will see irrefutable evidence of intelligent design, and that if you think about this logically you will be led inevitably and irrefutably to the conclusion that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, Jesus is coming Real Soon Now (tm), and in the meantime He has sent Donald Trump to deliver the United States of America from commie pinko liberal atheists. And if you don't accept all of that then there is clearly something wrong with you. There are literally millions if not tens of millions of American voters who at least profess to believe in the substance of what I have just written. Maybe they're all just trolling but I doubt it. I just have a hard time picturing them saying, "Ha ha, April fools! You didn't really think we were serious, did you?"