3 ms·

> When the less vocal people put out ideas, those ideas were discarded. The ideas that were rejected would have kept us alive and out of trouble, but they were

by im3w1l 4y ago

> When the less vocal people put out ideas, those ideas were discarded. The ideas that were rejected would have kept us alive and out of trouble, but they were dismissed because of the conviction with which the more vocal people suggested their ideas. I do think there are technological and social ways of at least lessening this issue. For instance the secret ballot might qualify. Planning poker is somehow similar, everyone commits to a secret opinion, but in this case they are then later revealed and used as a starting point for a discussion. Maybe Roberts Rules of Order. And for a big curveball, I think capitalism is actually also a countermeasure. By having parallel competing organizations, it means that if group-think hold takes hold in one of them, other organizations with different ideas can overtake it.

danaris 4y ago
Secret ballots are only helpful once everyone's already made a decision internally about what to do. In the scenario described, the problem wasn't people not choosing the better ideas because they were afraid of retaliation. It was them thinking the louder ideas were better because they were louder. It's very hard to solve problems like this with fancy procedures. IMO what's needed is a cultural shift to respect people's opinions and not lionize the loud and flashy.
- t-3 4y ago
  Secret ballots in a representative democracy actually demonstrate the problem very well. Often the choice ends up between the two loudest candidates. The tendencies towards binary "us vs them" thinking and using magnitude as an estimate of correctness seem to me to be instinctual social reactions, the type of thing that needs training and constant self-reflection to recognize and consciously avoid succumbing to or exploiting. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to constantly be on guard against themselves or to avoid using every available tool to achieve success, especially when we are so good at rationalizing our positions on anything. What's required might be a technical solution (not necessarily technological) - arranging meetings and discussions so that everyone can be seen and heard, using formats that promote reasoned discussion, greater expectations of formality and politeness, etc. A change of rules could kickstart a cultural change, but would certainly change how people behave in the fora where they were implemented.
- jerojero 4y ago
  It's difficult but there are many techniques that can help in aiding discourse. For example if you have a group of 20 or so people discussing an issue the best thing you can do is establish rotating, randomly selected groups of 4 or so people. People discuss together in these smaller groups then you bring everyone together to share some of the conclusions, rinse and repeat. Another thing that you can do is actually time interventions and establish a table that prioritises the people who have spoken the least to be given the word over those who have spoken the most. These measures help greatly with moderating discussions and this way everyone gets to hear other people's opinions. I think a big problem comes from the fact that when we have such discussion groups they tend to be led by extroverted people who don't really care (or understand) about moderating discussion in such a way that it lifts everyone's voices. But also at least in the political discussion groups I've been participating in the past few years, minority voices are usually lifted. But yeah, I think maybe an easy to use technology, say, an app; could aid in making discussions more balanced.

by im3w1l 4y ago

danaris 4y ago

Secret ballots are only helpful once everyone's already made a decision internally about what to do. In the scenario described, the problem wasn't people not choosing the better ideas because they were afraid of retaliation. It was them thinking the louder ideas were better because they were louder. It's very hard to solve problems like this with fancy procedures. IMO what's needed is a cultural shift to respect people's opinions and not lionize the loud and flashy.

t-3 4y ago
Secret ballots in a representative democracy actually demonstrate the problem very well. Often the choice ends up between the two loudest candidates. The tendencies towards binary "us vs them" thinking and using magnitude as an estimate of correctness seem to me to be instinctual social reactions, the type of thing that needs training and constant self-reflection to recognize and consciously avoid succumbing to or exploiting. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to constantly be on guard against themselves or to avoid using every available tool to achieve success, especially when we are so good at rationalizing our positions on anything. What's required might be a technical solution (not necessarily technological) - arranging meetings and discussions so that everyone can be seen and heard, using formats that promote reasoned discussion, greater expectations of formality and politeness, etc. A change of rules could kickstart a cultural change, but would certainly change how people behave in the fora where they were implemented.
jerojero 4y ago
It's difficult but there are many techniques that can help in aiding discourse. For example if you have a group of 20 or so people discussing an issue the best thing you can do is establish rotating, randomly selected groups of 4 or so people. People discuss together in these smaller groups then you bring everyone together to share some of the conclusions, rinse and repeat. Another thing that you can do is actually time interventions and establish a table that prioritises the people who have spoken the least to be given the word over those who have spoken the most. These measures help greatly with moderating discussions and this way everyone gets to hear other people's opinions. I think a big problem comes from the fact that when we have such discussion groups they tend to be led by extroverted people who don't really care (or understand) about moderating discussion in such a way that it lifts everyone's voices. But also at least in the political discussion groups I've been participating in the past few years, minority voices are usually lifted. But yeah, I think maybe an easy to use technology, say, an app; could aid in making discussions more balanced.