RESOLVING THE CONFLICT IN OUR NATION

RESOLVING THE CONFLICT IN OUR NATION

THE WISDOM OF GROUP DECISIONS

BY SAMUEL ORRIN SEWELL

In the previous chapter we discussed the duality of linear and non-linear human cognition, and offered the advice that we need to integrate both aspects of that condition in order to optimize our thinking and behaving. The duality of human cognition is just a small segment of the duality of all reality, from the dual nature of energy and matter, to male/female, to falsehood and truth, to connection to God and the absence of God.

Modern astrophysics tells us that the universe is about equally divided between physical reality and invisible dark matter. But there is a slight anomaly in that scientific hypothesis, for every million parts of dark matter there are a million and one parts of physical reality. The entire physical universe came into existence because of that one in a billion advantage. Dark energy and energy are in violent conflict.  If they happen to collide, both particles are instantly destroyed and converted into energy. That hypothesis can be used as a metaphor for all of the duality present in our nation and throughout the universe.

When we think about it for a while, we might even conclude that there’s a one in a million chance for the opportunity to resolve all of the cosmic conflict inherent in our existence. Rather than focus on the nature of the conflict, let’s examine that one in a billion opportunity for integration of these opposites.

Now let’s simplify this conundrum. You have heard the advice “look before you leap,” but you have also been advised that “he who hesitates is lost?” You may have heard that “absence makes the heart grow fonder,” and have you also heard “out of sight, out of mind?”  An argument could be made for the truthfulness of all four of those statements. Many years ago I learned that if two “truths” or two variables are in conflict with each other, the truth will be revealed by finding the underlying constant that unites those variables.

The Asian yin-yang symbol is a useful visual concept for the nature of the cosmos. The black side of the symbol is half the cosmos with a small portion of white embedded in it. The white side of the symbol is half the cosmos with a small portion of black embedded in it. The serpentine curvature between the two halves represents humanity. We are all trapped between the two halves of the cosmos, yet portions of us belong to the other side.

No matter how one-sided we might be, a portion of the other side is still inherent in our very nature. If we have the wisdom to explore our opposite natures, we have a one in a billion chance to resolve the conflict that poisons our nation, ourselves, our thinking and our cosmos.

The preceding themes of the chapters in this book have described the origins of conflict in the political sciences. But all is not lost. The good news is that group decision making seems to produce more efficient results than individual thinking. Our national presidential elections are almost always about a 50/50 split ; could it be that the combination of liberal and conservative decision making actually has effective positive and useful outcomes?

Here are some examples that might help us all embrace that one in a billion hopefulness.

This first example is even effective with individuals. Because we are a husband & wife therapy team, we often attract couples, marriages and families as our clients. One of the techniques we teach is the “Rule of Elevens.” This simple technique has reduced conflict for many couples. It is a way of facilitating group decision making and eliminating conflict. Unilateral decisions cause conflict between husbands and wives, so the Rule of Elevens allows couples to make win/win solutions without conflict. Here’s how it works:

The husband says, “Let’s go to the sports bar so I can play Trivial Pursuit with other trivia teams on the internet! What’s your number?” She says, “I’m only a two on that plan. It’s too noisy and the only food they have is hotdogs and hamburgers, but I would be an eight for a plan to go to that Japanese restaurant that I like. It has good food and other diners sit in the same area as us, so we can meet some new people and have fun making friends.” The husband says, “Well, I don’t want to go to the sports bar so badly that I’d overwhelm your wishes, so my number is a five because it may not be my favorite thing, but it’s not a bad idea. So if we add your eight to my five, we end up with twelve, which is more than eleven, so we’ll go to the Japanese place. The guiding rule here is it takes eleven points to make a two-person decision, but each partner only has ten points, so there’s no way to make a unilateral decision. Your partner needs to at least give you a one to go along with your ten. Now once the decision is made, the conflict is resolved and both parties can good-naturedly cooperate with the collective decision.

We devised this solution as a response to a situation we found ourselves in because of a lack of problem solving. We finished with a late client and I said, “Let’s eat out tonight,” so we decided to go to a restaurant. Near the end of our meal, Bunny said, “I would rather have eaten left-overs at home.” I said “So would I, so why are we here?”  It ended up that neither one of us was where we wanted to be, because we did not make a cooperative solution.

Now let’s bring this up a notch to group decision making. Bunny and I have both been presidents of community ministerial associations. You would be correct to surmise that conflict could arise between Catholics, Baptists and Unitarians. So the policy of every ministerial association in which we have participated requires that we only act on unanimous decisions. We all agree that we should feed the hungry, respond to natural emergencies,  invite others to social gatherings at our churches, and advance the cause of Christianity in general, et cetera. But we remain divided on whether women should be allowed in the ministry, can’t seem to find an agreement on what to do about lesbians and gays, and we remain politically divided in other significant ways. So as a group, we only act on unanimous decisions. We don’t think it is appropriate for the group to impose its will on individuals in the group. “To compel a man to furnish contributions for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson

The jury system is another example of effective, collective decision making. In any 12 person jury, there’s bound to be somebody who adamantly finds the defendant guilty and somebody who wants to exonerate the defendant. The coalition of decision making from all twelve jurors is usually an outcome that serves justice far more than any decision that would be made by an individual. Have you watched the old classic “Twelve Angry Men?”

There are some scientific studies that validate the hypothesis that group decisions are more effective than one side or the other of the cognitive yin/yang example. One of the simple examples of this principle is an experiment using collective decision making.

“Wisdom-of-the-crowds research routinely attributes the superiority of crowd averages over individual judgments to the elimination of individual noise, an explanation that assumes independence of the individual judgments from each other. Thus the crowd tends to make its best decisions if it is made up of diverse opinions and ideologies.” Many scientific evaluations of the effectiveness of group decision making deem the premise incontrovertible.

As a conservative thinker and voter, I find it difficult to accept that voters with opposing ideologies could actually be contributing to the effectiveness of our electoral system. I imagine that devoted Democrats would find it equally distasteful that conservative voters make a valuable contribution to the collective decision making embedded in our voting habits.

However, science offers no validation for the narrow-mindedness of either conservatives or liberals, and we all need to begin accepting the idea that group decision making is far superior to the decision making side of either the yin or yang dichotomy.

Bio: Philosopher, Clergyman, Psychotherapist, Scientist, Humorist and raconteur, Samuel Orrin Sewell, a life member of Mensa, is the Gifted Youth Coordinator for his local Mensa Chapter. He is the Director of a nation-wide, internet based psychotherapy practice. His articles are frequently published in political, religious, and behavioral science periodicals. He is a Navy veteran whose hobbies include aviation and classic cars -- and he owns a “Best in Show” award winning muscle car.