tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post4101886081664096720..comments2024-03-17T18:44:03.058+11:00Comments on Lazy Luddite Log: Just Say No... Just Say Yes...Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12710148812664294219noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-72253052003898722222009-05-12T20:26:00.000+10:002009-05-12T20:26:00.000+10:00Hey Conrad you never responded to my request (in a...Hey Conrad you never responded to my request (in another forum) to link my old broken test site to my new shiny active political test site...Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12710148812664294219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-79778666783850130702007-10-16T21:43:00.000+10:002007-10-16T21:43:00.000+10:00To put what Vivienne said in a broader way: Any sy...To put what Vivienne said in a broader way: Any system that presupposes human beings are reasonable creatures will disproportianately favour bastards. I just read an interesting article that touches on this issue at http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html , although it is specifically about internet forums.<BR/><BR/>I personally prefer consensus method, providing the two following conditions are met:<BR/><BR/>1. It is not a simple yes / no proposition<BR/><BR/>2. The personalities in the room are prone to reason<BR/><BR/>Of course number 2 is a tricky judgement call and has to take things such as dominant personalities into account.Cormac Lenihanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16752617571275298942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-10620445713941030782007-10-15T12:01:00.000+10:002007-10-15T12:01:00.000+10:00To EugenieThanks for that example. I suspect that...<EM>To Eugenie</EM><BR/><BR/>Thanks for that example. I suspect that it in part arises from a difference in cultural ways of interacting and can produce some destructive results even if they are entirely accidental.<BR/><BR/><EM>To 'Jacobian'</EM><BR/><BR/>Thanks for that link. I understand that a lot of activist groups derive a preference for concensus from the anarchist tradition so it will be interesting to look at an anarchist critique of the method.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12710148812664294219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-59710491315826405032007-10-14T19:20:00.000+10:002007-10-14T19:20:00.000+10:00The anarchist thinker Murray Bookchin writes abou...The anarchist thinker <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin" REL="nofollow"> Murray Bookchin</A> writes about <A HREF="http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bookchin/CMMNL2.MCW.html" REL="nofollow">this same subject</A> with basically the same conclusion.<BR/><BR/>I think there are other decision making methods as well. As you said, most people will just go along if there isn't a pressing interest either way. Votes are really only necessary if there is some sort of disagreement. Often times "consensus" can just be the lack of strong disagreement. I've seen meetings and decisions made without the need of explicit votes work fairly effectively. <BR/><BR/>In the end though, confrontations need to be dealt with, and I would also support the majoritarian approach in this case.Gavin Mendel-Gleasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14899896537888421449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-77639712044772575442007-10-14T17:51:00.000+10:002007-10-14T17:51:00.000+10:00There has been a problem in the past with Aborigin...There has been a problem in the past with Aboriginal people in the legal system displaying what is called "gratuitous concurrance". This means a defendant will say 'yes' in a police interview purely because the path of least resistence leads quickly to the interview being over. People are now recognising and addressing this problem, but it has been going on for a long time. I think there is definitely something in what you say about passivity and a preference for non-confrontation being part of human nature.Hoochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05368456301788226929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-58848726762681423882007-10-03T12:37:00.000+10:002007-10-03T12:37:00.000+10:00I feel that way Vivienne. Mind you it does depend...I feel that way Vivienne. Mind you it does depend on who is involved and what kind of decisions need to be made. Also there are many meetings that reflect elements of both. <BR/><BR/>I have been in many Australian Democrats branch or committee meetings in which many votes are unanimous (a case of majoritarian involving a mood of consensus). <BR/><BR/>Conversely in Nuclear Free Australia we can if need be resort to a vote if debate has stalled for too long (a case of consensus model which in the last resort is in fact majoritarian).Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12710148812664294219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-46750762429924128582007-09-28T11:02:00.000+10:002007-09-28T11:02:00.000+10:00I tend to agree that "consensus" decision making i...I tend to agree that "consensus" decision making is not really a way of including everyone in decision making. This style pre-supposes that people are reasonable and willing to make compromises. All too often the actual result is the victory of the most bloody-minded and unreasonable people in the group.vcollinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00125678748213020490noreply@blogger.com