It is the rare dispute that is resolved to both parties' equal satisfaction. Imagine you are having an argument with your neighbor about a tree of theirs that has fallen onto your property. Who is responsible for its removal? #principleoftheday (1/11)
Who owns the firewood? Who pays for the damage? While you might not be able to resolve the disagreement yourselves, the legal system has procedures and guidelines that allow it to determine what's true and what to do about it... (2/11)
...and once it renders its judgment it's done, even if one of you didn't get what you wanted. That's just the way life is. (3/11)
At Bridgewater, our principles and policies work in essentially the same way, providing a path for settling disputes that's not unlike what you'd find in the courts (though it's less formal). (4/11)
Having such a system is essential in an idea meritocracy, because you can't just encourage people to think independently and fight for what they believe is true. You also have to provide them with a way to get past their disagreements and move forward. (5/11)
Managing this well is especially important at Bridgewater because we have so much more thoughtful disagreement than other places. (6/11)
While in most cases people disagreeing can work things out on their own, it is still often the case that people can't agree on what's true and what to do about it. In those cases, we follow our procedures for believability-weighted voting and go with the verdict... (7/11)
...or, in the cases where the RP wants to do it his/her way contrary to the vote and has the power to do so, we accept that and move on. (8/11)
In the end, people who join our idea meritocracy agree to abide by our policies and procedures and the decisions that come out of them, just as if they had taken a dispute to court and had to abide by its procedures and the resulting verdict. (9/11)
This requires them to separate themselves from their own opinion and avoid getting angry when a decision doesn't go their way. (10/11)
If people don't follow the agreed-upon paths, they don't have the right to complain about either the people they disagree with or the idea-meritocratic system itself. (11/11)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There will come a point in all processes of thinking things through when you are faced with the choice of requiring the person who sees things differently from you to slowly work things through until you see things the same way... #principleoftheday (1/5)
...or going along with the other person, even though their thinking still doesn't seem to make sense. I recommend the first path when you are disagreeing about something important and the latter when it's unimportant. (2/5)
I understand that the first path can be awkward because the person you are speaking to can get impatient. To neutralize that I suggest you simply say, "Let's agree that I am a dumb shit but I still need to make sense of this, so let's move slowly to make sure that happens." (3/5)
When they're at odds, you should work hard to resolve the disagreement.
If you are about to make a decision that the believability-weighted consensus thinks is wrong, think very carefully before you proceed. #principleoftheday (1/4)
It's likely that you're wrong, but even if you're right, there's a good chance that you'll lose respect by overruling the process. (2/4)
You should try hard to get in sync, and if you still can't do that, you should be able to put your finger on exactly what it is you disagree with, understand the risks of being wrong, and clearly explain your reasons and logic to others. (3/4)
I regularly see people ask totally uninformed or nonbelievable people questions and get answers that they believe. This is often worse than having no answers at all. Don't make that mistake. #principleoftheday (1/4)
You need to think through who the right people are. If you're in doubt about someone's believability, find out.
The same is true for you: If someone asks you a question, think first whether you're the right person to answer it. (2/4)
If you're not believable, you probably shouldn't have an opinion about what they're asking, let alone share it.
Be sure to direct your comments or questions to the believable Responsible Party or Parties for the issues you want to discuss. (3/4)
I admired Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as he was a principled man with great principles. The few that come to mind that are especially relevant at this time are:
(1/7)
1. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
(2/7)
2. We must either learn to live together as brothers or we are all going to perish together as fools.
I have often seen less believable people (students) insist that the more believable people (teachers) understand their thinking and prove why the teacher is wrong before listening to what the teacher (the more believable party) has to say. #principleoftheday (1/4)
That's backward. While untangling the student's thinking can be helpful, it is typically difficult and time-consuming and puts the emphasis on what the student sees instead of on what the teacher wants to convey. (2/4)
For that reason, our protocol is for the student to be open-minded first. Once the student has taken in what the teacher has to offer, both student and teacher will be better prepared to untangle and explore the student's perspective. (3/4)
While it pays to be open-minded, you also have to be discerning. Remember that the quality of the life you get will depend largely on the quality of the decisions that you make as you pursue your goals. #principleoftheday (1/4)
The best way to make great decisions is to know how to triangulate with other, more knowledgeable people. So be discerning about whom you triangulate with and skilled in the way you do it. (2/4)
The dilemma you face is trying to understand as accurately as you can what's true in order to make decisions effectively while realizing many of the opinions you will hear won't be worth much, including your own. (3/4)