Okay, bear with me today.
I drop in occasionally to read Kathy Sierra's blog CREATING PASSIONATE USERS which you can find here: http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/
Awhile back, she mentioned a book by James Surowiecki called THE WISDOM OF CROWDS, which you can see at Amazon.com here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385721706/
Surowiecki's premise is: Groups are wise NOT in their CONSENSUS of opinion--everyone having to come to the SAME conclusion--but in their AGGREGATE opinions--everyone coming to their OWN conclusion, as everyone gets to express their opinion.
Here is the quote from the PUBLISHERS WEEKLY review that summarizes Surowiecki's premise: "Wise crowds" need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people's errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees that the results are "smarter" than if a single expert had been in charge.
I'm intrigued by this premise, and I've ordered the book.
But how did this insight help me grow today?
Because there's a group dynamic I've been in that's puzzled me for ages. And now I have a grip on it.
When I first found on-line forums, I was thrilled to voice my opinion about EVERYTHING. Didn't matter if I had actual EXPERIENCE with the subject. I still had an opinion.
That opinion was valid, of course, but I've learned since then. It's more useful to express an opinion based on (or at least grounded in) actual experience.
So I started to shut up. Instead of feeling like I need to constantly express MY opinion, I let everyone else express theirs. I began to listen to others more. And only chime in when I felt I had something to ADD to the discussion.
If I feel there is a side or angle that's been left out of the discussion, that's when I chime in. ESPECIALLY if it seems this person's opinion has overwhelmed the process for others.
OR if I feel the tone of the discussion is going downhill, or toward the lowest common denominator, I will speak up.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not. But I know what's right for ME. And I know there may be other people who find that helpful.
There is a person in my professional circle I've known for years. We both particpate in several of these on-line forums.
For some reason, everything I say and every opinion I hold is highly irritating to this person. They tend to publicly disagree with everything and everything I say. In private e-mail, they have called me names and said deplorable things to me. This person is contentious, contrary, highly opinionated and cantankerous. They believe I am an idiot and have told me so on many occasions.
All efforts on my part to find consensus, a common ground, or even to politely agree to disagree, are met with fury, disdain, and insult.
At first I was bewildered by this state of affairs. Then hurt. Then pissed. Now bemused.
But until I read about this book, I didn't see what this person's role in my world was.
I now see that this person forces ME to be a better person. To THINK about what I say, and to DECIDE what kind of person I want to be. And to be more respectful towards people who hold different opinions than me. (Okay, I haven't evolved THAT much. I'M RIGHT and THEY'RE WRONG!!!) (But I still try to treat them nicely.)
This person's negative thoughts in the group brings out BETTER thoughts in ME.
Ultimately, BOTH our points of view make the group better.
By that person taking the extreme cantankerous position in almost every discussion, I feel obliged to explore other ways of thinking about the situation.
I feel honour-bound to counterbalance this person's negative output. To offer people another way of looking at things.
As I write this, I realize I've probably become that person's gadfly.
And maybe it's good for them, too.
