Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (12143)	4/20/2001 3:34:18 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

The meaning of consensus depends in part on whether you are seeking an answer from within or without. In the Quaker theology, for example, there is a recognition that God has certain answers for us which are accessible to those who truly search for them. The search is process is communal. The group is looking for THE answer. When everyone present is satisfied that he or she is hearing God's wisdom, and all are hearing it the same, then consensus is acknowledged. If even a single person hears a different message, then it is accepted that the group has not yet reached consensus, and the process continues. One of two things will happen. The dissenting member(s) may realize that he, she, or they is or are inaccurately hearing. Or the majority of the group may realize that they have been hearing unclearly, and the dissenting understanding may become the consensus understanding. Throughout the process, though, it is clear that the group is not creating a decision from within the group, but is discerning a reality which exists outside the group. The process of discerning by consensus from externally extant reality is not, of course, limited to the theological realm, thought that's my own major involvement with it. Scientists, for example, are also looking for external reality; there is an assumption that there is a truth outside the group and that the task of the group is to discern that reality, whether it be the composition of a star, the existence of cold fusion, or whatever. Science seeks consensus; when consensus is reached, there is an assumption that truth has been reached on that point, though of course further facts may lead to a new consensus, as with for example plate tectonics. But if even one scientist, acting consistently with the principles of science, dissents, there is a recognition that that scientist may, indeed, be right and the rest may be wrong -- it may, indeed, move. The other form of consensus is consensus on internally generated solutions. For example, what is the best way to protest Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto accords. Here there is no assumption that there is, "out there" somewhere, the right answer and it's simply the job of the group to discern it. Rather, this form of consensus is working toward broad agreement on a solution which will eventually come out of the group. Here, since there is no pure right answer, dissent is more often overlooked, and consensus really means supermajority decisionmaking. This kind of consensus can be sought for many different reasons. For example, it may be thought to be the best way to get all the ideas on the table and get to the right answer. It may be felt that getting broad agreement will mean that people "buy into" the decision with more personal commitment. In discussing consensus, I think it's important to recognize which kind of consensus process is being used, AND to decide whether the group realizes the difference. (For example, sometimes scientists fall into the internally generated creating consensus process when they should be looking for the externally extant discernment consensus process.)

To: TimF who wrote (12143)	4/20/2001 3:38:54 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

This may be the first time I have ever read that term. I imagine whether or nor there is any consensus it is rarely developed through a designed "consensus process". Yes, I am, indeed, using terms of art. Mea culpa. I hadn't planned on a big discussion about this. I just couldn't let pass the question of how large a majority was required to have a consensus. Most people don't know anything about consensus processes. I just stumbled into it a number of years ago and went from skeptic to convert in short order. It's amazing how you can turn warring parties into team mates. I've talked about this before but not often because I know how offensive and boring true believers can be. If you ever have occasion to participate in such a process, give it a chance. You'll be surprised. Karen P.S. Some of the techniques can be adapted to use on these threads but not many. To run a process you need people 1) physically in a room together and 2) at least somewhat motivated to cooperate.