INTPs and Building Consensus

[Hustler]

I am curious about how INTPs view the process of group decision making and the role of consensus in that process. How important is building consensus -- in the sense of accord, general agreement or solidarity, and not just majority rule -- for you when you are engaged in a decision-making process within a group. Do you tend to ignore the ideas of others, or perhaps stick to your guns and argue your position in hopes of influencing others, or maybe just call for a vote and get it over with, or do you prefer to try to take in all points of view and work with all of the input within a group to reach a consensus? For purposes of this discussion, please assume that there are no power-dynamics coloring your decision making (you're not the boss and nobody else is your boss) and assume it is a decision in which you have a great interest. It's not something you can apathetically turn over to the rest of the group to decide, and it is something where you cannot function independently to whatever decision finally gets made, thereby eliminating the default INTP stance of autonomy.

[Dunearhp]

How long does this group have to last? Consensus can be important for fostering long term group stability, even if it means sub-optimal decisions in the short term.

I often find myself in a mediator role in any group in which I am heavily involved (being 9w1), and a little consensus on a lesser topic can let you get away with a more heavy handed approach on a more important topic. Sometimes in my lazier moments I am happy just to sit back and let them deal with the mess that they make for themselves.

People are easier to manipulate when they push their position out of ego. Puff them up a bit and they are more inclined to follow your lead. Even better is when you can get someone else to do the puffing.

More of a problem is a smart charismatic type pushing a flawed agenda. The group will more often than not follow such people. You may be forced to either concede to this person, change their mind, or tear them down. Unfortunately tearing them down can damage your own position as well as reducing group cohesion.

Edit: I bet this post makes me sound a little evil. :devil:

[Xander]

Consensus = efficiancy of motion. All parts moving in the same diretion. No interpersonal "drag" coefficient. That sounds like the one I'd go for.

However if it involved a substantial shift from the origional focus and direction of the concept (the bit which I care for anyhow) then I am more likely to be unmovable and extremely critical of other's ideas. I tend to find that in such situations I will still look to get a consensus but I will be less forgiving of deviance from the line.

[geniusndisguise]

I truly hate these kinds of situations. I'm much more likely to just remove myself from the situation and the group if I'm unhappy with the decision than I am to actually vehemently argue my opinion. Of course, that depends on who the members of the group are. Still, I may make my voice heard a bit if I disagree with the direction the group seems to be headed, but rarely will I argue, even if the outcome will make a big impact on my day-to-day.

[Jennywocky]

Well, it's something I wrestle with even when I am leader. I hate making top-down decisions -- partly because I'm non-committal and partly because I hate overriding other people when the choice seems more personal than anything.... or they have strong values that I respect, even if I disagree with their stance in the discussion.

Approach necessarily changes on context. (Dearn mentions, appropriately, situations you might need to develop more consensus in order to retain long-term capital in the group.)

I dunno. Usually I end up frustrated. I sometimes have a very strong POV (in terms of what should NOT be done, especially); but I also hate telling others what to do. The thing that leaves with the least guilt/anxiety afterwards is to argue my point and woo the crowd as best as I can, then leave the decision up for the vote and not invest more beyond that. Begging people for support or else bullying them leaves me feeling awful afterwards. I flex and move on.

This is probably why I don't participate much in conventional groups. I'd rather just give them something to chew on, then go my own way.

[geniusndisguise]

I dunno. Usually I end up frustrated. I sometimes have a very strong POV (in terms of what should NOT be done, especially); but I also hate telling others what to do. The thing that leaves with the least guilt/anxiety afterwards is to argue my point and woo the crowd as best as I can, then leave the decision up for the vote and not invest more beyond that. Begging people for support or else bullying them leaves me feeling awful afterwards. I flex and move on.


This is my approach also. It's not always a good idea. When my husband and I decided to open a restaurant and I disagreed with decisions like: type of restaurant, prices, whether to buy a specific place, I gave him my opinion and let him know exactly how I felt about it but left the ultimate decisions to him. We lost our shirt.

[immortalmack]

If there are superior ideas I will ask for understanding (so i can learn) and then get clear instructions on my duties.If the ideas are a mix between good and bad I will support the best ideas and discuss what makes up the bad. If there are no good ideas I will have already come up with a solution and prove why it is superior over the rest (without insult most of the time). If everyone disagrees with my idea I would be kind enuff to watch it fail or humble enuff to learn why it succeeded.
Now one thing I detest is womens games,weak flip floppy men and feeble Jedi mind tricks. I hate manipulation and when I detect it i will be the crusader and worst nightmare for the one who's dishonest and shady. I 'll tolerate inferior ideas before I tolerate deception. the only time I tolerate deception is in politics where the ends justify the means. but unless it's a 250k plus bonus don't pull no bullshit or I'm blowin it all up.

[Dr. Haight]

Do you tend to ignore the ideas of others, or perhaps stick to your guns and argue your position in hopes of influencing others,That was me from the ages of 15 through 25.



or do you prefer to try to take in all points of view and work with all of the input within a group to reach a consensus? That's me from 25 to present. Although I do this because I have learned through experience that other people have proven to have ideas that are equal to or better than my own - not always . . . but enough to make listening worth the effort.

[geniusndisguise]

other people have proven to have ideas that are equal to or better than my own

And you're admitting to this?

[Dr. Haight]

And you're admitting to this?Sadly . . . yes. :ph34r:

[Jennywocky]

Other people have proven to have ideas that are equal to or better than my own

And you're admitting to this?

He's weak... and we have outgrown him. (mua ha ha)

[geniusndisguise]

Sadly . . . yes. :ph34r:

Awww :hug:

[Rajah]

I prefer consensus to discord, so usually I'll try to accommodate everyone's major sticking points. But how I respond depends on the particular circumstances. Some things I'll fight for tooth and nail; some, I carefully consider input; some, I defer completely.

[C.J.Woolf]

Pretty much what Rajah said. I have my own list of what I really want, what I kinda want, and what I don't care about; and I try to find out what everybody else's lists are. Then I propose 90% solutions, where everyone gets 90% of what they want.

[bergenski]

I would gather all the facts, listen to all points of view, draw my conclusion and present my argument for why I think that is the most important conclusion. I would try to convince others that it is the best decision and, being INTPs, I would expect they would be willing to hear a logically founded argument. I think the plus side is that INTPs seek truth, so that is a strike in favor of reaching a group decision, on the minus side INTPs hate to admit they are wrong and some may stick to their guns for the sake of being "right." Either way, I would present my position, argue it to a reasonable extent, and whatever the decision comes to be I would accept and work with. I don't see the need to build consensus for the sake of consensus, I would think INTPs would rationally discuss the situation and come to a sensible conclusion.

[Hustler]

I would gather all the facts, listen to all points of view, draw my conclusion and present my argument for why I think that is the most important conclusion. I would try to convince others that it is the best decision and, being INTPs, I would expect they would be willing to hear a logically founded argument. I think the plus side is that INTPs seek truth, so that is a strike in favor of reaching a group decision, on the minus side INTPs hate to admit they are wrong and some may stick to their guns for the sake of being "right." Either way, I would present my position, argue it to a reasonable extent, and whatever the decision comes to be I would accept and work with. I don't see the need to build consensus for the sake of consensus, I would think INTPs would rationally discuss the situation and come to a sensible conclusion.

Uh, that's great, but the original post says nothing about the group being made up entirely of INTPs.

[puzzled-observer]

I personally feel that consensus is important in group situations, because without it, the group doesn't function. Compromises must be made so that you can achieve optmum performance. I'll usually pick an idea that i think is the best and try to push for it. Sometimes the group doesn't agree, and if i feel like i'm ramming my head against a brick wall, i'm forced to choose the runner up course of action. Continually doing so untill everyone can agree on a course of action.

[bergenski]

Uh, that's great, but the original post says nothing about the group being made up entirely of INTPs.
Well, regardless, my approach would be that of an INTP one, which is the best, most proper decision should be reached, no matter the personal positions of people. That involves taking in others and presenting my point of view. I would press my position strongly because I want the best decision to be made and the analytical and logical side is often absent from many ideas. How I might manage that argumentation depends on the future working relations with the group as to how people should be handled, but the idea of "consensus" would be low on the list. Unfortunately, I know that creates problems and how people function and react, which is why I am not interested in being part of a group decision. But from a theoretical perspective, consensus isn't important to me, the best choice is, and I won't back down from that or parlay that out of a need to manage fuckers.

EDIT: I understand that the way to best manage groups is to "handle" people and manage them so that they feel they are part of the group without being rejected for their position, and that probably is the best way to approach group decision making...finesse so that things run smoothly and the best decision still gets put into place, and that is the approach I would probably adopt more since I had a vested interest in the outcome and it's more important to work with people than to simply argue them to death. From my perspective, though, I don't enjoy such things, so I would be more interested in just hearing the ideas and arguments and trying to convince people based on a purely presentational perspective.

[intpgolfer]

I am curious about how INTPs view the process of group decision making and the role of consensus in that process.

If it is a good discussion they usually lose me when I hear a great idea - and I immediatly start to internalize and develope it - at the expense of further - and necessary input.


How important is building consensus -- in the sense of accord, general agreement or solidarity, and not just majority rule -- for you when you are engaged in a decision-making process within a group.

I admire F's for their genius to compromise - I like the theory of concensus - but I am not smart enough to keep my cup empty - in a Zen way - and back up a little from one of my insights - so I can then add more tea to the cup - and to the discussion.


Do you tend to ignore the ideas of others, or perhaps stick to your guns and argue your position in hopes of influencing others, or maybe just call for a vote and get it over with,

If the decision is moving away from my preference - I need to get away - and figure out how I can rationalize the new direction - which I must now learn to accept. Suprisingly I can usually do this. And if you live long enough - I have found - everything happens to you. And if you thought it would kill you - if it happened - it doesn't


or do you prefer to try to take in all points of view and work with all of the input within a group to reach a consensus?

I would like to be able to explain all the arguments - to which I do not agree - as well, or even better than it's proponents - but I can't keep from adding more and more counter-points, as the discussions develope. But at least I try - and I think I will be better in my next life.



For purposes of this discussion, please assume that there are no power-dynamics coloring your decision making (you're not the boss and nobody else is your boss) and assume it is a decision in which you have a great interest. It's not something you can apathetically turn over to the rest of the group to decide, and it is something where you cannot function independently to whatever decision finally gets made, thereby eliminating the default INTP stance of autonomy.

My answers would have been easier - had I been able to walk away?

[Rice-Tactics]

I'll often agree to my opinions and my opinions only unless I feel so un-confident that I dont have an opinion at all which is usually the case. But... I wont argue over my perspective because I'm lazy, dont care, and think that it is a waste of my time especially if its over nothing important. So to avoid confrontation I'll usually just agree with the person and move on. The only time I'll ever present my opinion is if I'm asked.

[s0978]

It's not something you can apathetically turn over to the rest of the group to decide, and it is something where you cannot function independently to whatever decision finally gets made, thereby eliminating the default INTP stance of autonomy.

Comfortable taking a vote, reaching resolution and moving on once it seems everyone has heard each other and reasonably understands the issues.

In a way I think I tend to privilege consensus and cooperation at too much of an expense to self-assertion, though. Autonomy does kick in insofar as there's some apathy toward influence and persuasion. Or maybe that's not autonomy but an attempt to respect the autonomy of others. I don't know, I'm getting confused.

[Madrigal]

I am curious about how INTPs view the process of group decision making and the role of consensus in that process. How important is building consensus -- in the sense of accord, general agreement or solidarity, and not just majority rule -- for you when you are engaged in a decision-making process within a group. Do you tend to ignore the ideas of others, or perhaps stick to your guns and argue your position in hopes of influencing others, or maybe just call for a vote and get it over with, or do you prefer to try to take in all points of view and work with all of the input within a group to reach a consensus? For purposes of this discussion, please assume that there are no power-dynamics coloring your decision making (you're not the boss and nobody else is your boss) and assume it is a decision in which you have a great interest. It's not something you can apathetically turn over to the rest of the group to decide, and it is something where you cannot function independently to whatever decision finally gets made, thereby eliminating the default INTP stance of autonomy.

It really does depend on the diversity of opinions that are represented within the group. Sometimes there are juxtaposed stances that cannot be resolved if not by the defeat of one fraction of the group by means of majority rule. You'd also be in trouble if those that defend a very different stance are charismatic figures that are capable of convincing a respectable majority to side with them.

In these cases, the tactic I use is to stick to my position and argue it with the aim of convincing the more moderate group members. That is to say, appeal to the ambitions, doubts and frustrations of those that are not on the extremes of the debate (I always land myself in an extreme). The idea is to isolate the other extreme as much as possible.

In the process of doing so, it would be necessary to define the elements in the scenario in question that would indicate a favourable outcome for my proposal. If general predictions and characterizations fail, one is forced to appeal to more specific arguments; focusing on a more immediate sub-context or questioning the results of previous decisions made by the opposing opinion-leaders. Yuck. That's dangerous territory for me because my strength is arguing on the basis of the big picture. However, some people may feel stronger on another level of debate, and it would be necessary to defend one's position on a variety of levels.

Are the moderate group members sensors or intuitives? Are they feelers or thinkers? In a way, I considered these things even before I understood MBTI, though it would have been good to better understand them earlier. My "big picture" proposals were too often discarded in favour of more short-term policies.

Consensus was usually never an option, except for when the decision to be made was either not very urgent, or not that important to begin with.

I generally oppose consensus-based decisions because of the Frankenstein that ends up being produced - a lukewarm decision that leaves everyone unhappy and is largely ineffective, not to mention time-consuming, exhausting and disenchanting for the group. Better to test the adequacy of a completely opposite theory and see it fail, than to arrive at a totally sterile, impotent decision that leaves fewer valuable lessons to be learned about each distinct viewpoint displayed in a debate.

At the heart of the consensus tactic is the fear of accountability and the hypocritical idea that everyone's input is relevant for any decision. Sometimes they are not, sometimes a point of view can only serve as a burden that the group needs to shed in order to realize its potential.

I see consensus as a tactic used by people who wish to artificially impose their own deadlines on reality. Reality imposes deadlines for us most of the time, not the other way around. It is for people who don't understand the extremely contraditory, incompatible nature of the forces at play in a given scenario. Supposing there is a middle ground that can be reached is ignoring how different the existing strategies really are. Attempting to combine these elements can actually lead to the implosion of the group. This can be avoided only by engaging in groupthink, which is one easy way to actually decide on anything in time for it to actually be applicable in a changing scenario.

What happens to consensus-based groups? The stronger elements splinter off of them and seek other groups where their opinions stand a chance. This is how consensus preserves group-think.