Consensus.
 

I've been wondering recently about whether it would be possible for a large group of people to reach a consensus about most things if they were given tools to communicate their individual thoughts to one another with complete clarity.

I think it would be possible, given the right tools, and that the implications are great.

Do you think that a consensus could nearly always be reached if people could communicate with absolute clarity?

Btw, I'm trying my first poll. I hope it works...

If I could explain sincerely how I have made my posture, and the rest could make the same; then I think we could compare and finally reach a consensus.

In that situation is possible; problem comes when people does not attend to the others' interests or their reasons to think differently.

I would have to say maybe. If the situation was dire enough and the evidence for advancement very much solid then it may be possible.

I really doubt it, it would be possible if some people didn't like to ignore what was blatantly obvious because it conflicts with what they have been told.

I admit that I had to say no since there are to many differences that people have in regards to their beliefs, social situations, etc. It would be very difficult, even on the most basic of issues, to get a consensus.

No because no two people think exactly alike. Dont think I need to explain that further.

@Dreaming: Consensus is exactly about looking for a common place between different thoughts. EG, laws are something we all agree on because they defend common interests to every member of a society.

I think it is. It is a model that is actually in use not only by small communities, but it was in use by some of the plains indians of northern america and it is used by several organizations among them japanese companies. So it seems to me that the model of consensus decision making works fine. But there are some basic pillars that have to be regarded as important. The most important is respect (of other opinions, of other peoples knowledge and wisdom). Another one is inner peace (to not debate out of emotional dissonance to another member of the group). And then there is something I would call humbleness (meaning that one should not take the own ideas too importantly and be honest with oneself in regard of what a decision means for the group. One has to accept that the outcome may not be ideal for the personal "gain"). In short - the people involved would have to have a way of thinking that is not exactly promoted in our society, so either such a group has to be different from the beginning, or they would have to un-lean some assumptions first. But then it is possible.