3 ms·
The phrase "Disagree and commit" only makes sense when two peers (or groups thereof) agree in discussing a decision in equal terms, and committing to whatever t
by vemv 3y ago
The phrase "Disagree and commit" only makes sense when two peers (or groups thereof) agree in discussing a decision in equal terms, and committing to whatever the decision is.
Of course, the way it's used here is a perversion of an otherwise useful principle.
- injb 3y ago>>> The phrase "Disagree and commit" only makes sense when two peers (or groups thereof) agree in discussing a decision in equal terms, and committing to whatever the decision is. Where does the "disagree" part come in to it then?
- vemv 3y agoYou disagree while discussing, but (ideally) you agree in advance that there will be a) a mechanism for making a decision (e.g. voting, coin flipping) and b) there will be a commitment to work on the decided approach as if it were one's own. The opposite tends to result in endless discussions: people don't get to work in their full capacity - they still seek rebuttal, sneaking in their preferred approach, etc.
- xboxnolifes 3y agoTwo peers is maybe too small a group. Take 5, 4 of which think one way and 1 another. A decision must be made by end of day. By the end of the day, the outlier may not be convinced, but they should "disagree and commit" to working toward whatever the decision is.
- vidarh 3y ago"Disagree and commit" is also the core of Lenin's "democratic centralism" (there with a claim of adhering to the idea of discussing it on equal terms first). As you say, it can make sense in small groups, but in larger groups it quickly becomes a means to demand compliance by controlling when the debate is shut down (conveniently when you have the upper hand)
- drewcoo 3y agoExactly, it's a tool for forming consensus when consensus cannot be reached.