I took the line written to mean that there are no “opinion leaders”. In a system where people could vote but actually trust someone elses judgement the amount of votes doesn’t reflect the amount of judgement processes employed.
I also think that in a system that requires a consensus it becomes tempting to produce a false consensus. This effect is strong enough that in all context where people bother with the concept of consensus there is enough basis to suspect that it doesn’t form that there is a significant chance that all particular consensuses are false. By allowing a system of functioning to tolerate non-consensus it becomes practical to be the first one to break a consensus and the value of this is enough to see requiring consensus to be harmful.
All the while it being true that while opinions diverge there is real debate to be had.
I took the line written to mean that there are no “opinion leaders”. In a system where people could vote but actually trust someone elses judgement the amount of votes doesn’t reflect the amount of judgement processes employed.
I also think that in a system that requires a consensus it becomes tempting to produce a false consensus. This effect is strong enough that in all context where people bother with the concept of consensus there is enough basis to suspect that it doesn’t form that there is a significant chance that all particular consensuses are false. By allowing a system of functioning to tolerate non-consensus it becomes practical to be the first one to break a consensus and the value of this is enough to see requiring consensus to be harmful.
All the while it being true that while opinions diverge there is real debate to be had.
This comment actually made our own policy clearer to me, thanks!