Changes

The [[formal]] [[process]] of achieving consensus [[ideally]] requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each [[group]] member: those advocating the adoption, say, of a particular course of [[action]], genuinely wish to hear those who may be against the proposal, since [[discussion]], it is supposed, can only enhance [[ultimate]] consensus. The [[hope]] is that in such circumstances action, or the adoption of [[group]] opinion, without resolution of dissent will be rare. A consensus rather than a voting process is often employed with this [[intention]], as well as to minimize any possible damage to interpersonal [[relationships]].

The [[formal]] [[process]] of achieving consensus [[ideally]] requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each [[group]] member: those advocating the adoption, say, of a particular course of [[action]], genuinely wish to hear those who may be against the proposal, since [[discussion]], it is supposed, can only enhance [[ultimate]] consensus. The [[hope]] is that in such circumstances action, or the adoption of [[group]] opinion, without resolution of dissent will be rare. A consensus rather than a voting process is often employed with this [[intention]], as well as to minimize any possible damage to interpersonal [[relationships]].

<center>For lessons on the topic of Consensus, follow [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Consensus '''''this link'''''].</center>

<center>For lessons on the [[topic]] of '''Consensus''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Consensus '''''this link'''''].</center>

==Consensus as collective thought==

==Consensus as collective thought==

A close equivalent phrase might be the "[[collective]] agreement" of a [[group]], keeping in [[mind]] that a high degree of variation is still possible among [[individuals]], and certainly if there must be individual commitment to follow up the [[decision]] with [[action]], this variation remains important. There is considerable [[debate]] and [[research]] into both [[collective intelligence]] and consensus decision-making.

A close equivalent phrase might be the "[[collective]] agreement" of a [[group]], keeping in [[mind]] that a high degree of variation is still possible among [[individuals]], and certainly if there must be individual commitment to follow up the [[decision]] with [[action]], this variation remains important. There is considerable [[debate]] and [[research]] into both [[collective intelligence]] and consensus decision-making.

The most common and most successful [[model]] of consensus is called the prisoner's dilemma. An introduction and discussion of this [[concept]] can be found in any contemporary introduction to [[political science]]. This approach might be called "algebraic" as opposed to [[analytic]], within [[mathematics]], because it represents an [[agent]] by a [[symbol]] and then examines the algebraic properties of that symbol. For example, the question, "Can two agents be combined to make a new agent?" sounds like an algebraic question. (More formally, "is the operation of consensus closed in the domain of agents? Is there a larger domain of "abstract agents" in which this operation is closed?")

The most common and most successful [[model]] of consensus is called the prisoner's dilemma. An introduction and discussion of this [[concept]] can be found in any contemporary introduction to [[political science]]. This approach might be called "algebraic" as opposed to [[analytic]], within [[mathematics]], because it represents an [[agent]] by a [[symbol]] and then examines the algebraic properties of that symbol. For example, the question, "Can two agents be combined to make a new agent?" sounds like an algebraic question. (More formally, "is the operation of consensus closed in the domain of agents? Is there a larger domain of "abstract agents" in which this operation is closed?")

In a more [[analytic]] style, we might [[naive]]ly start by envisioning the distribution of opinions in a [[population]] as a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution Gaussian] distribution in one parameter. We would then say that the initial step in a consensus [[process]] would be the written or spoken [[synthesis]] that represents the range of opinions within perhaps three standard deviations of the mean opinion. Other [[standards]] are [[possible]], e.g. two standard deviations, or one, or a unanimity minus a certain tolerable number of dissenters. The following steps then operate both to check understanding of the different opinions (parameter values), and then to find new parameters in the multi-dimensional parameter space of all possible decisions, through which the consensus failure in one-[[dimensional]] parameter space can be replaced by a solution in multi-dimensional parameter space.

In a more [[analytic]] style, we might [[naive]]ly start by envisioning the distribution of opinions in a [[population]] as a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution Gaussian] distribution in one parameter. We would then say that the initial step in a consensus [[process]] would be the written or spoken [[synthesis]] that represents the range of opinions within perhaps three standard deviations of the mean opinion. Other [[standards]] are [[possible]], e.g. two standard deviations, or one, or a unanimity minus a certain tolerable number of dissenters. The following steps then operate both to check understanding of the different opinions (parameter values), and then to find new parameters in the multi-dimensional parameter space of all possible decisions, through which the consensus failure in one-[[dimensional]] parameter space can be replaced by a solution in multi-dimensional parameter space.

An alternative, [[qualitative]], mathematical description is to say that there is an iterative process through (m+n)-dimensional parameter space, starting from initial guesses at a solution in (m)-dimensional parameter [[space]], which tries to converge to find a common solution in (m+n)-dimensional parameter space.

An alternative, [[qualitative]], mathematical description is to say that there is an iterative process through (m+n)-dimensional parameter space, starting from initial guesses at a solution in (m)-dimensional parameter [[space]], which tries to converge to find a common solution in (m+n)-dimensional parameter space.

Typically, the usefulness of [[formal]] models of consensus is confined to cases where follow up [[action]] is closely and centrally controlled, e.g. in a [[military]] [[hierarchy]] or a set of similar computer programs executing on hardware that it completely controls. The [[idea]] of consensus itself is probably quite [[different]] when considering [[action]] by a [[group]] of independent [[human]] [[agents]], or considering action by those taking orders and committed to executing them all without question, or suffering great harm or exile for any disobedience.

Typically, the usefulness of [[formal]] models of consensus is confined to cases where follow up [[action]] is closely and centrally controlled, e.g. in a [[military]] [[hierarchy]] or a set of similar computer programs executing on hardware that it completely controls. The [[idea]] of consensus itself is probably quite [[different]] when considering [[action]] by a [[group]] of independent [[human]] [[agents]], or considering action by those taking orders and committed to executing them all without question, or suffering great harm or exile for any disobedience.

Consensus upon a particular formal model of consensus can lead to [[groupthink]], by making it harder for those who reject that formal model (and using informal or different models) to be heard. This recursion suggests the extreme [[complexity]] of [[reasoning]] about consensus in a [[political]] [[context]]. An example is the peace movement's objection to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game Theory game theory] [[logic]] of mutual assured destruction during the Cold War. Peace activists, objecting to military goals and spending found the formal models of the military to be major obstacles. As they had not mastered game theory models they simply were not heard.

Consensus upon a particular formal model of consensus can lead to [[groupthink]], by making it harder for those who reject that formal model (and using informal or different models) to be heard. This recursion suggests the extreme [[complexity]] of [[reasoning]] about consensus in a [[political]] [[context]]. An example is the peace movement's objection to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game Theory game theory] [[logic]] of mutual assured destruction during the Cold War. Peace activists, objecting to military goals and spending found the formal models of the military to be major obstacles. As they had not mastered game theory models they simply were not heard.

==In democracy==

==In democracy==

As this example suggests, the [[concept]] of consensus is a particularly important one in the [[context]] of [[society]] and [[government]], and forms a cornerstone of the concept of [[democracy]]. Democracy, in its most [[essential]] form, direct democracy, has been criticized by a significant [[number]] of [[scholars]] since the time of [[Plato]] as well as adherents to strict republican principles, and is sometimes referred to as the "[[tyranny]] of the majority", with the implication that one faction of the [[society]] is dominating other factions, possibly repressively.

As this example suggests, the [[concept]] of consensus is a particularly important one in the [[context]] of [[society]] and [[government]], and forms a cornerstone of the concept of [[democracy]]. Democracy, in its most [[essential]] form, direct democracy, has been criticized by a significant [[number]] of [[scholars]] since the time of [[Plato]] as well as adherents to strict republican principles, and is sometimes referred to as the "[[tyranny]] of the majority", with the implication that one faction of the [[society]] is dominating other factions, possibly repressively.

Others, however, argue that if the democracy adheres to principles of consensus, becoming a deliberative democracy, then party or factional dominance can be minimized and decisions will be more representative of the entire society. This too is [[discussed]] in depth in the article on consensus decision-making, with many actual examples of the tradeoffs and different tests for consensus used in actual societies and polities.

Others, however, argue that if the democracy adheres to principles of consensus, becoming a deliberative democracy, then party or factional dominance can be minimized and decisions will be more representative of the entire society. This too is [[discussed]] in depth in the article on consensus decision-making, with many actual examples of the tradeoffs and different tests for consensus used in actual societies and polities.

A major cornerstone of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_System Westminster System] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_Government Cabinet Government]. All Cabinet decisions are consensual [[collective]] and inclusive, a vote is never taken in a Cabinet meeting. All ministers, whether senior and in the Cabinet, or junior ministers, must support the [[policy]] of the [[government]] [[public]]ly regardless of any [[private]] reservations. If a minister does not agree with a decision, he or she may resign from the government; as did several British ministers over the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. This means that in the Westminster system of government the cabinet always collectively decides all decisions and all ministers are responsible for arguing in favour of any decision made by the cabinet.

A major cornerstone of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_System Westminster System] is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_Government Cabinet Government]. All Cabinet decisions are consensual [[collective]] and inclusive, a vote is never taken in a Cabinet meeting. All ministers, whether senior and in the Cabinet, or junior ministers, must support the [[policy]] of the [[government]] [[public]]ly regardless of any [[private]] reservations. If a minister does not agree with a decision, he or she may resign from the government; as did several British ministers over the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. This means that in the Westminster system of government the cabinet always collectively decides all decisions and all ministers are responsible for arguing in favour of any decision made by the cabinet.

==Drawbacks==

==Drawbacks==

[[Business]] and [[political]] [[analysts]] have pointed out a number of problems with consensus decision-making. A too-strict requirement of consensus may effectively give a small self-interested minority group veto power over decisions. Decision by consensus may take an extremely long time to occur, and thus may be intolerable for urgent matters, e.g. those of executive decisions. In some cases, consensus decision-making may [[encourage]] [[groupthink]], a situation in which people modify their opinions to [[reflect]] what they believe others want them to [[think]], leading to a situation of pseudoconsensus in which a group makes a decision that none of the members individually think is [[wise]]. It can also lead to a few dominant individuals making all decisions. Finally, consensus decision-making may fail in a situation where there simply is no agreement possible, and interests are irreconcilable.

[[Business]] and [[political]] [[analysts]] have pointed out a number of problems with consensus decision-making. A too-strict requirement of consensus may effectively give a small self-interested minority group veto power over decisions. Decision by consensus may take an extremely long time to occur, and thus may be intolerable for urgent matters, e.g. those of executive decisions. In some cases, consensus decision-making may [[encourage]] [[groupthink]], a situation in which people modify their opinions to [[reflect]] what they believe others want them to [[think]], leading to a situation of pseudoconsensus in which a group makes a decision that none of the members individually think is [[wise]]. It can also lead to a few dominant individuals making all decisions. Finally, consensus decision-making may fail in a situation where there simply is no agreement possible, and interests are irreconcilable.

==Examples within computing==

==Examples within computing==

Within the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Force Internet Engineering Task Force] (IETF), the concept of "rough consensus and running code" is the basis for the [[standardization]] [[process]]. It has proven extremely effective for standardizing [[protocols]] for inter-computer communication, particularly during its early years.

Within the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Force Internet Engineering Task Force] (IETF), the concept of "rough consensus and running code" is the basis for the [[standardization]] [[process]]. It has proven extremely effective for standardizing [[protocols]] for inter-computer communication, particularly during its early years.

In [[computer science]], Consensus is a distributed computing problem in which a [[group]] of nodes must reach agreement on a single [[value]]. Achieving consensus is a challenging problem in distributed systems, particularly as the number of nodes grows or the reliability of links between nodes decreases.

In [[computer science]], Consensus is a distributed computing problem in which a [[group]] of nodes must reach agreement on a single [[value]]. Achieving consensus is a challenging problem in distributed systems, particularly as the number of nodes grows or the reliability of links between nodes decreases.

"Consensus" may also refer to the Consensus theorems in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra_(logic) Boolean algebra].

"Consensus" may also refer to the Consensus theorems in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra_(logic) Boolean algebra].

[edit] Examples of non-consensus

[edit] Examples of non-consensus

Interestingly, the [[peer]] review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process. Referees submit their opinions individually and there is not a strong effort to reach a group opinion.

Interestingly, the [[peer]] review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process. Referees submit their opinions individually and there is not a strong effort to reach a group opinion.

==References==

==References==

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

==External links==

==External links==

* [http://home.arcor.de/danneskjoeld/F/E/T/Consent.html Theory of Consent] - in a natural order [[philosophy]] (from an anarchocapitalistic point of view)

* [https://home.arcor.de/danneskjoeld/F/E/T/Consent.html Theory of Consent] - in a natural order [[philosophy]] (from an anarchocapitalistic point of view)

* [http://www.zhaba.cz/uploads/media/Shared_Path.pdf Shared Path, Shared Goal] - a short pamphlet on consensus

* [https://www.zhaba.cz/uploads/media/Shared_Path.pdf Shared Path, Shared Goal] - a short pamphlet on consensus

* [http://wikiconsensus.bluwiki.com WikiConsensus]

* [https://wikiconsensus.bluwiki.com WikiConsensus]

[[Category: Sociology]]

[[Category: Sociology]]

[[Category: Political Science]]

[[Category: Political Science]]