1/ In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business (Charlan Jeanne Nemeth)
"Consensus narrows, while dissent opens, the mind. Both affect the quality of our decisions. There are perils in consensus and value in dissent." (p. 14)
amazon.com/Defense-Troubl…
"Consensus narrows, while dissent opens, the mind. Both affect the quality of our decisions. There are perils in consensus and value in dissent." (p. 14)
amazon.com/Defense-Troubl…
2/ "A consensus position can sway our judgments even when it is in error, and even when contrary evidence is in our face.
"Persuasion by a dissenter is more indirect, requires more time, and follows a more subtle choreography of argument.
"Persuasion by a dissenter is more indirect, requires more time, and follows a more subtle choreography of argument.
3/ "Dissent (consensus) broadens (narrows) our thinking. We consider more information and more options, we use multiple strategies in problem-solving, and we think more creatively. On balance, consensus impairs the quality of our decisions, while dissent benefits it.
4/ "It is not easy for someone who holds a dissenting viewpoint to express it. When we think or believe differently from those around us, we are not sure that we are right.
"We are also afraid of the ridicule or rejection that are likely to come from dissenting." (p. 2)
"We are also afraid of the ridicule or rejection that are likely to come from dissenting." (p. 2)
5/ "Power coupled with a need for control can manifest itself in hubris and a tendency to silence opposition.
"Even when dissent is not correct, it breaks the blind following of the majority. People think more independently when challenged." (p. 6)
"Even when dissent is not correct, it breaks the blind following of the majority. People think more independently when challenged." (p. 6)
6/ "Research supports the relative accuracy of large numbers of people when the task involves common knowledge and the judgments are independent (when people are not influenced by one another).
"Majorities are correct under certain specific circumstances." (p. 9)
"Majorities are correct under certain specific circumstances." (p. 9)
7/ "Divergent thinking seeks information on all sides of the issue, the cons as well as the pros.
"Convergent thinking seeks information that supports an initial preference. We tend not to consider the cons, nor do we look at alternative interpretations of evidence." (p. 12)
"Convergent thinking seeks information that supports an initial preference. We tend not to consider the cons, nor do we look at alternative interpretations of evidence." (p. 12)
8/ "Being liked has benefits. But the price is often unreflective thinking, bad decisions, and reduced creativity.
"Consensus can lead to unreported problems and ethical violations. Have you ever wanted to scream when no one would talk about the elephant in the room?" (p. 12)
"Consensus can lead to unreported problems and ethical violations. Have you ever wanted to scream when no one would talk about the elephant in the room?" (p. 12)
9/ "The benefits of intellectual dissent do not derive from a diversity of demographics (age, gender, race). Nor do they come from education and training, which, even though well meant, are limited and have benefits that are often overblown." (p. 16)
10/ "Asch’s 'line-length' study found that 37% of people agreed with the majority’s incorrect judgment. Whether the study is replicated in Fiji, the Netherlands, Japan or Canada, many people follow the majority even when their senses tell them the majority’s judgment is in error.
11/ "When the judgment involves ambiguity—as, for example, questions of politics or business often do—the majority’s power is even greater. My colleagues and I have found that people can follow the majority as much as 70% of the time, even when that majority is wrong.
12/ "The amount of conformity to the majority’s erroneous judgment is affected by a number of variables. It is higher when the task is more difficult or more ambiguous; it is also higher among individuals who have low self-esteem or who are attracted to the group." (p. 25)
13/ "If you deviate from the crowd, you lose in reputation whether you succeed or fail. It is a lose/lose situation. If you are right (a successful contrarian), it only confirms that you are rash. If you are wrong (an unsuccessful contrarian), you will be vilified.
14/ "Kathleen Ryan and Daniel Oestreich found that 70% of employees don’t speak up when they see problems.
"Employees think that the company will simply ignore what they say. There is also the fear of repercussions, such as ridicule and rejection from the majority." (p. 32)
"Employees think that the company will simply ignore what they say. There is also the fear of repercussions, such as ridicule and rejection from the majority." (p. 32)
15/ "Unanimity may be the most important variable affecting the majority’s power.
"Asch’s early length-of-lines study provided evidence that breaking consensus is the route to independence; if the individual had an ally, he was much less likely to follow the erroneous majority.
"Asch’s early length-of-lines study provided evidence that breaking consensus is the route to independence; if the individual had an ally, he was much less likely to follow the erroneous majority.
16/ "Even if the dissenter is even more wrong than the majority, the evidence shows we are more independent. With any break in unanimity, the power of the majority is seriously diminished (agreement with the erroneous majority dropped from 37% to 9%)." (p. 41)
17/ "Nearly all of us punish dissent. We don’t like disagreement with our beliefs. Whenever I demonstrate the Schachter study in a university class, it turns into a mob scene. Students who are normally polite and tolerant have no trouble laughing at the lone dissenter.
18/ "Daring to dissent takes courage. What is interesting is that this courage, when summoned, is contagious.
"People have the courage to express dissent once they have witnessed it—that they can model a dissenter’s courage even if they don’t agree with her position." (p. 48)
"People have the courage to express dissent once they have witnessed it—that they can model a dissenter’s courage even if they don’t agree with her position." (p. 48)
19/ "More than once, I was asked for “combat pay” by the accomplice we hired to be the dissenter. In almost every experiment, he was subjected to participants' anger; occasionally, he was threatened. We don’t like those who disagree with us, esp. if they are “the few”." (p. 62)
20/ "For a dissenter to persuade, a necessary (if not sufficient) condition is that the dissenter be consistent. He cannot capitulate. He cannot compromise if doing so implies a change in position. (He can change his position only in response to new information.)
21/ "This runs counter to the common notion that we should parse our words lest we offend, that we should compromise rather than stick to a position too doggedly, that we should become likable. Likability is not the basis of the dissenter’s ability to change minds." (p. 56)
22/ "If you want to make a deal, you usually have to compromise, but if you want to change minds, compromise is a bad strategy.
"Compromise does make you better liked—more precisely, less disliked. But that is not the determining factor for a dissent to be persuasive." (p. 63)
"Compromise does make you better liked—more precisely, less disliked. But that is not the determining factor for a dissent to be persuasive." (p. 63)
23/ "Over and over, studies show that dissenters change more minds in private than in public, unlike majorities, which often get public agreement even if people don’t believe in the truth of the majority position." (p. 62)
24/ "When a dissenter compromised at the last minute, he appeared both consistent and flexible. He did not change his position. He simply offered a concession. As a result, got the other participants to make public concessions and also changed their private attitudes." (p. 67)
25/ "In our mock-jury studies, an uncompromising dissenter does change others' attitudes. Participants don’t acknowledge this change directly, but if the researcher changes the phrasing of the question, their response reflects the change in their attitudes.
26/ "The researcher asks “what-if” questions (“What if the plaintiff asked for double the amount of money?”). This allows the majority to change their minds without acknowledging having been persuaded by the dissenter.
"If we dissent, we we will probably get no credit." (p. 68)
"If we dissent, we we will probably get no credit." (p. 68)
27/ "We select/interpret information in ways consistent with our (biased) beliefs. We are also biased toward old solutions that no longer work.
"When we are faced with a majority, our range of thinking narrows even more. It favors one direction—the majority opinion." (p. 82)
"When we are faced with a majority, our range of thinking narrows even more. It favors one direction—the majority opinion." (p. 82)
28/ "When the people around us agree, we assume they are right. When everyone is in one line at the box office, we go to the end of that line. When everyone in the room laughs, we laugh too—contagiously and unconsciously. In fact, we are often unaware of our mimicry." (p. 88)
29/ "The majority strategy may not actually work, yet we follow it. Worse, we tend not to use others, even ones we would normally use on our own.
"Taking multiple approaches doesn’t ensure that you will find the correct solution, but it greatly increases the likelihood." (p. 93)
"Taking multiple approaches doesn’t ensure that you will find the correct solution, but it greatly increases the likelihood." (p. 93)
30/ "We are not generally open to information that opposes our beliefs, especially when convinced that we're right. We favor information that confirms our beliefs.
"When we face consensus that disagrees with our position, however, we do the opposite of what we would do normally.
"When we face consensus that disagrees with our position, however, we do the opposite of what we would do normally.
31/ "In a powerful twist, rather than look for support for our own position, we prefer information that confirms the consensus. We don’t look at both sides. We take the consensus perspective rather than our own and primarily seek information that supports the consensus position.
32/ "But in the presence of dissent, we don’t narrow our search to any one position, whether our own or that of the dissenter. Instead, we expand our search. We seek information on both sides and consider the cons as well as the pros of positions, including our own." (p. 112)
33/ On brainstorming studies: "Allowing debate and criticism led to more, not fewer, ideas than the control condition (when the groups were told “not to criticize”). These results were found in both the United States and France." (p. 129)
34/ "Most people think of diversity in terms of categories—for example, gender or race—but, in fact, it is diversity of opinion that better predicts improved decision-making. Even more than that, it is combat between different positions that provides the benefits." (p. 135)
35/ "Research seems to support the notion that a directed leader, one who makes his preference known at the outset, sets in motion a myriad of decision-making processes that end in bad decisions." (p. 142)
36/ "Groups either start with relative homogeneity of opinion or manage to create it. The consensus then intensifies the belief in the correctness of the position. This homogeneity is achieved mainly through polarization and through the communication and pooling of information.
37/ "Hundreds of studies have documented the fact that a group of people who basically agree on the direction of a decision will become more extreme and more confident after discussion.
"Since we seek out people who agree with us, polarization occurs frequently." (p. 147)
"Since we seek out people who agree with us, polarization occurs frequently." (p. 147)
38/ "A lecture can make you more inclined to do something, but group discussion leads to action. For people already leaning in one direction, talking to those who have a similar leaning leads to more extreme attitudes, commitment to act, and actual behavior changes." (p. 151)
39/ "A study by Stasser and Titus showed that groups do not effectively pool information, leading to biased samples. What is put on the table during discussion is information that members had before the discussion and information that favors their *current* position." (p. 150)
40/ "One study showed this proportion to be as strong as 3:1 favoring information held in common.
"Dissent is a minority opinion: its information is relatively unique. It is therefore less likely to be expressed and less likely to be used for decision-making.
"Dissent is a minority opinion: its information is relatively unique. It is therefore less likely to be expressed and less likely to be used for decision-making.
41/ "A meta-analysis of 65 studies concludes that such groups are 8 times less likely to find the right solution compared to groups in which everyone knows all of the information.
"Information held by the majority tends to be grossly overrepresented and repeated." (p. 157)
"Information held by the majority tends to be grossly overrepresented and repeated." (p. 157)
42/ "In principle, groups have more resources than individuals—more information, experience, and perspective. Yet groups can operate as less than the sum of their parts when not all of those resources are brought to bear, when not all opinions are aired." (p. 163)
43/ "I show my classes photographs of the cabinets of G.W. Bush and Barack Obama. Both show a mix of demographics: men and women, a range of ethnicities and races, and different heights, weights, and ages.
"But they don’t differ much in the type and color of their attire.
"But they don’t differ much in the type and color of their attire.
44/ "The one thing I can almost guarantee is that the cabinet members in either administration do not differ much in their political leanings or perspectives on policy. They were chosen for their loyalty to the president and their alignment with his vision." (p. 170)
45/ "Research shows mixed results for the link between demographic diversity and the quality of team performance or decision-making. Many teams with diverse categories do not have diverse perspectives. Some have diverse perspectives, but team members do not speak up.
46/ "Having a diverse mix of demographic categories may or may not improve group decision-making. In some cases, it can have negative effects. Studies show that demographic diversity can lower morale and bonding. It can also reduce satisfaction and even retention.
47/ "Since there is repeated evidence that similarity is a powerful predictor of liking, high morale, and friendships, demographic diversity poses challenges. It can create “we/they” divides. It can also make communication more difficult—or at least more complex.
48/ "Neither diversity on readily observable attributes nor on job-related attributes are reliably linked to group performance.
"Some studies show a positive relationship between such diversity and performance or decision-making, but others show a negative or no relationship.
"Some studies show a positive relationship between such diversity and performance or decision-making, but others show a negative or no relationship.
49/ "In a specific case, we can find strong effects, but as a general pattern, the value of demographic diversity is mixed. To some extent it is a “false promise.”
"The key may lie in whether demographic diversity actually brings different perspectives into the process." (p.172)
"The key may lie in whether demographic diversity actually brings different perspectives into the process." (p.172)
50/ "One of the most ambitious naturalistic studies observed the value of dissent for strategic decision-making in US hospitals. With all the challenges posed by a large field study, the researchers surveyed the entire population of hospitals in three states.
51/ "They found evidence that when members “openly expressed a difference of opinion,” the quality of the decision was better. Such decisions were seen as more financially responsible and as contributing to the hospital’s overall effectiveness.
52/ "The results of studies of top management teams by Kathleen Eisenhardt and her colleagues are consistent with these studies. They concluded that it is often valuable to “have a good fight” in decision-making teams.
53/ "Among the tactics of the best teams are that “they work with more, rather than less, information. They develop multiple alternatives to enrich debate. They resolve issues without forcing them to consensus.” " (p. 177)
54/ "People have been persuaded that the route to good team functioning lies in liking and cohesion—precisely the factors that promote a rush to judgment. We are repeatedly advised “to go along and to get along” if we are to “win friends and influence people.”
55/ "Dissent involves conflict. It makes people uncomfortable and invokes anger/dislike of the dissenter. On top of this, people do not credit the dissenter with stimulating divergent thinking. They certainly do not recognize the impact of dissent on their own thinking." (p. 179)
56/ "The one thing you learn as a social psychologist is that we all have biased and inflated beliefs about our own rationality and independence. We think we assess information rationally. We think that we are unbiased and that knowledge plus good intentions will lead to truth.
57/ "But you, like everyone else, select information and consider alternatives in a limited way. Good intentions won’t save us from biases and poor judgments. A better route is to have our beliefs directly challenged by someone who authentically believes differently." (p. 190)
58/ "It has always worried me when people think they have considered all sides of a position when in fact their thoughts have mostly attempted to bolster the position where they started. This what we found when we researched 'devil’s advocate' discussion methods.
59/ "Perhaps my concerns arise because, for too many years, I have watched the pumped-up moral superiority by people who believe that they have considered all sides of an issue—and have no patience for any challenge to the position they have declared." (p. 204)
60/ "We especially have much to learn from those who think differently from us, the ones we might not seek as friends. We know what our friends and allies think. They think like us, and that makes us overconfident and poor decision-makers." (p. 204)
61/ "Dale Carnegie advised that we be nice. If we criticize others, we won’t make the sale. Unfortunately, it’s not true for groups that want to make good decisions and find creative solutions. The message should be that ideas are welcome: the more novel, the better." (p. 211)
62/ "The fear of speaking up creates major problems. We see the effects in scandals such as the rogue trader known as “the London Whale” losing $6.2 billion for JPMorgan Chase in 2012 by doubling down on his bets.
"But it was not just one individual who stoked that scandal.
"But it was not just one individual who stoked that scandal.
63/ "Also playing a part was the complicity of other traders, some of whom kept two separate books to minimize the size of the losses. There were undoubtedly many others who remained silent about what they suspected. After all, risk limits were breached more than 300 times.
64/ "We saw it in the classic example of groupthink—the Bay of Pigs decision. Arthur Schlesinger remained silent—and later reproached himself for not speaking." (p. 212)
“The beginning of thought is in disagreement—not only with others but also with ourselves.” Eric Hoffer
“The beginning of thought is in disagreement—not only with others but also with ourselves.” Eric Hoffer
65/ Related reading:
Charlan Nemeth's U.C. Berkeley research page
psychology.berkeley.edu/people/charlan…
The Art of Non-Conformity (Chris Guillebeau)
Thinking in Bets (Annie Duke)
The Undoing Project (Michael Lewis)
Charlan Nemeth's U.C. Berkeley research page
psychology.berkeley.edu/people/charlan…
The Art of Non-Conformity (Chris Guillebeau)
https://twitter.com/ReformedTrader/status/1359217542116462592
Thinking in Bets (Annie Duke)
https://twitter.com/ReformedTrader/status/1302337159303540737
The Undoing Project (Michael Lewis)
https://twitter.com/ReformedTrader/status/1317876706414227457
67/ Bad calls and other examples of conventional thinking gone wrong:
https://twitter.com/ReformedTrader/status/1316380442765914115
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
