That`s true, but realistically, most people are starting to think they`re right. Also remember that probably more than 50% of people think they are smarter than average, and probably the best advice is to start most disagreements, provided you get it wrong! In this article, Robin Hanson expressed a disagreement on the well-known theory at the construction level: www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/disagreement-is-nearfar-bias.html 1. facts. People have access to different information. One person studied physics, another did not. One spent years reading American news sources, another Chinese. Different sources will expose people to different facts about the world, which, of course, can lead to differences of opinion. People have also had different personal experiences that can lead them to different worldviews. If the group has not reached an agreement after the delimitation of the alternatives, you can now be sure that the differences are level 2 (different values or experiences) and then use consensus strategies (for example.B. The discussion of strength and weaknesses, the fusion of alternatives, the conjunction of alternatives) to get the group to reach consensus. 9. Self-interest.
At a basic level, Bob probably cares more about Bob`s well-being than Karen`s, and Karen probably cares more about Karen`s well-being than Bob`s. While Bob and Karen may explain a disagreement in other less selfish terms (z.B. “I think it`s better for the company if we relocate offices”), it might be easy for them to all act interested and have different interests. But what is more subtle is that people`s brains often make it difficult for them to see the truth, because the truth will have negative consequences for them. Take, for example, the case where someone has raised their whole life in an extreme cult. If they find evidence that the beliefs of worship are false, they will probably experience intense fear, because discovering and believing that worship is false could have very serious negative consequences for them, as this could lead them to be cut off from all those they love. As a result, there may be intense psychological pressure to stop thinking about this evidence or to find rationalization to explain why the evidence must be false, which will be immediately profitable in eliminating fear. Effective, your brain cannot allow you to see the truth, because it anticipates the negative consequences of it, and it tries to protect you from those consequences.
Remember that a Level 2 disagreement is based on different experiences or values. We believe that through the process of strengths and weaknesses, you will help the Group identify the underlying values that make participants support one alternative to another. Even in the absence of consensus, identifying these underlying values will provide the group with a clear basis for progress. As a moderator, you can then use one of the other consensus-building techniques (for example, merging. B, weighted score, converging) to facilitate group consensus. If we encounter a complex and difficult disagreement to resolve, we can see why it occurs and how it can be resolved, taking into account the roles of the nine (and in particular the first six) fundamental causes of disagreement: (1) facts, (2) definitions, (3) values, 4) signage, (5) error of logic, (6) group competition, (7) methods of processing information, (8) standard convictions and (9) of personal interest. Perhaps a better heuristic is to check whether your level of security in your position is more or less than your average level of security on all the issues on which you might disagree. Hopefully there will be less bias on this question of whether you are more confident than usual. If everyone followed the policy of self-belief, if they were unusually confident, and believing the other person, if they were less confident than usual, the average accuracy would increase.