“What does the word ‘obstinate’ mean? – The shortest route is not the most direct but that upon which the most favorable winds swell our sails: thus do seafarers teach us. Not to follow this teaching is to be obstinate: firmness of character is here polluted by stupidity.” – Nietzsche

*

The premise of this post: a culture of deliberation only arises intentionally. Effective deliberation happens only when a group decides on deliberation as its principle and enforces that principle.

“Analysis paralysis” appears to be caused by analysis, but is in fact caused by resistance to reason, by those who think they can use means other than reason to get their way.

*

Those who appeal to urgency and the need for expedience to shut down deliberation and take immediate action rarely, following the logic of their argument, accept the course of action advised by their opponent. Nor do they realize or admit that resisting deliberation can take ten times longer than… simply deliberating in good faith.

The reason is obvious: in many cases the urgency is exaggerated or manufactured and expedience is only justification for coercion for people who simply prefer coercion, or who are averse to the discomfort of hearing out unfamiliar perspectives.

(This tactic has been highly effective and remains popular in politics. A party will exaggerate a threat in order to suppress dissent, and institute “emergency” measures, all in the name of urgency. Beware the politician in a hurry…)

*

If a group consists largely of submissive souls who are not inclined to demand respect and are not outraged having their perspectives disregarded, the most expedient path is to establish a hierarchy invested with coercive powers. A domineering soul leading an obedient group is highly efficient. What is can accomplish is limited but it will accomplish what it can very rapidly.

However, if a group is constituted of people who consider respect to be non-negotiable, the most expedient path is to make deliberation impossible to circumvent. If a domineering soul harbors even the slightest hope that he can force his will rather than engage in genuine deliberation he will waste hours or days arguing that there is no time to discuss matters. Or he will resort to whatever forms of intimidation he believes will be tolerated by the group.

A group has to decide as a group what behaviors it will tolerate and not tolerate. The real threat to progress is not endless deliberation over what to do, but an absence of clarity around how the group will come to a decision.

By making its principles clear a group can set rules for itself and follow them efficiently, whether those rules are a militaristic “I make the calls” ethic, or a more collaborative and empathic style of arriving at a common understanding. Clarity also helps weed out misfits. If a person cannot tolerate coercion (or deliberation), knowing ahead of time that he is entering an ethos where coercion (or deliberation) is tolerated he can avoid being subjected to what he finds unacceptable.

But having a laissez-faire attitude of “you two come to a decision yourselves” – this presupposes deliberation. When what is at issue is deliberation itself – when the argument comes down to one party arguing that he does not have time to understand the other – a laissez-faire attitude toward the dispute undermines deliberation.

Deliberation is much more fragile than coercion. Deliberation only arises when a group decides on it. Coercion is perfectly at home in the jungle, in the desert, in a breakdown of social order – anywhere an individual survives or perishes alone.

The strong and tough naturally love coercion, and they create conditions that favor their strength and toughness. The vulnerable need the protection of one another and need to understand the conditions under which they can flourish. Those conditions do not arise on their own, and they do not persist where they are not cultivated. Vulnerability is no argument against a thing.