Step 1:
Pick a person at random. Pose this question:
“What do we know about [x]” where X is the problem/opportunity/topic/whatever.
Write that down. Keep it <10 words.
Then.. (1/n)
Move to the next person. They can:
* Ask a clarifying question, ask for data/context
* Propose a refinement of the statement
* Give a thumbs up (they agree 100%)
* Give a thumbs up to a prior refinement
* Propose a “footnote” or caveat
Repeat this.... (2/n)
As you continue you’ll start to get an idea of the situation:
1) lots of unknowns (we can “know” unknowns)
2) lots of competing interpretations of the data
3) convergence on a statement of fact
4) broad truth that doesn’t really help anyone
5) etc.
Keep it up (3/n)
Quickly you’ll either get somewhere or not. And that is ok. If you converge on something you can align on, or agree you need to learn, record that!
Next: next statement (Step 1). One by one. Doing the hard work.
Output — series of statements that you agree on (4/n)
Normally, these convos just spin out of control ... posturing, defensiveness, etc. (5/n)
Right now we have lots of mixed signals about this and very different views of X can be powerful.
Instead of hiding uncertainty under the table, we embrace it (6/end)