Quaker Decision* Rule- Unanimity or Nothing
Edwin Hutchins, Cognition_in_the_Wild
Imagine a
world in which each network can attend to only one aspect of the environment at
a time, but all networks communicate with one another about the interpretations
they form on the basis of
what they
are attending to.
Suppose
further that there is more information in the environment consistent with one İnterpretation
(call it the best interpretation ) than with another. Then, any single individual
acting alone will reach the best interpretation only when it happens to be
attending to some aspect of the environment that is associated with that
interpretation or when it happens to be predisposed to that interpretation.
If there are
many networks and the aspect of the environment each attends to is chosen at
random, then on average more of them will be attending to evidence supporting the
best interpretation than to evidence supporting any other interpretation, since
by definition the best interpretation is the one for which there is most
support.
If the
networks in such a group are in high -bandwidth communication with one another from
the outset, they will behave as the Gala system did, rushing as a group to the
interpretation that is closest to the center of gravity of their
predispositions regardless of the evidence.
If, however,
they are allowed to go their own ways for a while, attending to both the available
evidence and their predispositions, and then to communicate with one another,
they will first sample the information in the environment and then go (as a
group ) to the interpretation that is best supported.
The
simulations indicate two shortcomings of this mode of resolving the diversity of interpretations. First, if
some individuals arrive at very well -formed interpretations that are in
conflict with
one another
before communication begins, there may be no resolution at all. They may simply
stay with the interpretations they have already formed.
Sometimes
such " hard cases" can be dislodged by changing the disbibution of
access to evidence in the community by giving stubborn networks direct access
to evidence that contradicts their present interpretation. However, this may
only drive the network to a state in which it has no coherent interpretation of
the situation.
·
Key components of Quaker-based consensus
include a belief in a common humanity and the ability to decide together. The
goal is "unity, not unanimity." Ensuring that group members speak
only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought.
·
How do
Quakers make decisions?
·
The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model)
identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion
deeper. The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there
are other concerns, and proposes a "minute" of the decision.
·
The Positives and Negatives
of Decision by Committee
https://nevadasmallbusiness.com/the-positives-and-negatives-of-decision-by-committee/
