Pros And Cons Of Reaching A Consensus

Yet, no one could agree on anything, so

Madison again agrees that this idea is as unrealistic as the first. Can you imagine in world where everyone was the exact same? People would theoretically speaking never disagree but eventually

This is due to a shared distaste for a gotcha, big-headed, and win at all costs discourse. The competition, while creating a certain drive amongst individuals, can not come at the expense of honesty and due process. Tannen is correct in that the NEED to win requires “scholars to (1) at best oversimplify, at worst distort or even misrepresent others’ positions; (2) search for the most foolish statement and the weakest examples to make a generally reasonable treaties appear less so; and (3) ignore facts that support the opponent’s views and cite only those that support theirs.” A form of competition/debate, I believe, without these flaws would be the most desirable - I am aware that due to the length of this essay I have committed to some extent all these, therefore making me somewhat of a hypocrite - in creating an environment that allows scholars and students alike to advance humanity's

Consensus may work in some predicaments but insisting it works in all is preposterous. When all is said and done, consensus is not the most effective strategy for decision making, it suppresses creativity, is rarely suitable, and compromises morals and values. In order to be successful, coming up with a resolution should be focused on the whites and blacks rather than the greys. Some things are better kept on paper like consensus

Universities and junior colleges are places where we learn different things and ideas from the different spheres and influences from our professors and instructors. These are also a place where we should value different opinions from both sides, in order to form a position in where you stand in your beliefs as a person, a balance opinion should be our utmost priority in order to have a constructive dialogue between both sides of the political spectrum. However, not validating and listening to the opinion of others can create a divisive rhetoric, where we end up ridiculing and criticising one another because of his/her political views. In the essay from Christina Hoff Sommers, “For More Balance on Campuses,” she criticises the liberalisation

People disagree with each other, it is a fact of life. No matter if it is about how water is or is not wet or whether you put the milk or the cereal in the bowl first, people will always disagree. Everyone has small arguments with each other, but they always have something similar in common. Everyone has different opinions depending on where they are coming from or what they believe in. In the movie High Noon and the story “The Most Dangerous Game”, there are characters who have different opinions that disagree because of what they are surrounded by.

In other words, group polarization can increase the divide between groups who think differently, but reiterate the same belief in groups that think the same. One individual representing a minority opinion can effectively sway others if their opinion is steadfast. If people are confident in their view and their view is unwavering, they are more likely to draw others to reconsider their views and possibly change their

Instead of causing conflict and turmoil we must find a way to make everyone happy and satisfied. This ties into parts of the Rogerian argument style which deals with problem solving over a heated debate.

To establish common ground, a relationship in disorder must be in place. There must be a conflict which cause each side of the conflict to fight for their own rights. Overtime, more persuasive techniques have been made, persuading the minds of others. In Zack Snyder 's “Man of Steel”, Cal - in some cases known as Clark - takes on many situations in which he must find common ground. Throughout his life, he encounters situations and conflicts among himself and other people, which causes common ground to have to be established.

Psychologist Irving Janis explained some alarmingly bad decisions made by governments and businesses coined the term "groupthink”, which he called "fiascoes.” He was particularly drawn to situations where group pressure seemed to result in a fundamental failure to think. Therefore, Janis further analyzed that it is a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members ' striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. According to Janis, groupthink is referred as the psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses disagreement and prevents the appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision-making groups.

The essence of decision making – and, in turn, the essence of politics – is compromise: compromise in both positive and negative aspects of a possible solution. And in every decision- making process, the most efficient way may not be the one that is most followed. People may follow suit to others, depending on their beliefs, on their personal inclinations, and their opinions on the matter. And yes, these idiosyncrasies in every individual eventually show themselves as they decide on the matter as a whole. Less-informed people, on that matter, are more likely to choose a less efficient solution, yet there are exceptions for both parties: more informed people are also likely to give out more convoluted solutions to simple problems.

Why or why not? Depending on the severity of the issue it would be a bad or good way to make decisions. If the issue is an important issue that could affect the lives of many people I feel the ultimate decision isn 't always the best because individuals start to get too attached to their views and will not reach a compromise. There should be a leader who makes the final decision who takes into account all questions or concerns.

Firstly, reasons of agreement are safety concerns and maintaining the order of society. On the opposite side, a cause

For example, when discussing group project with my teammates from other countries, I found we had quite different opinions over the topic, as I would focus more on the welfare and benefits of developing countries in Asia through the integration process, while they may consider the benefits as a

Issue consensus is very often difficult to attain. According to Highley and Burton (2006) value consensus and structural integration characterize elite consensus. The first term combines both kinds of consensus - democratic and issue one. The second term implies overlapping networks and communication which connects the elites. But the conflicts among the elite exist and probably always will.