"This is a discussion that's going poorly, I know what will fix it, let's expand it to an immensely larger group of people!!!"
How often has this seemed emminently reasonable to you?
Boosts appreciated.
@dredmorbius hm, very contextual. if there is a decision to be made after a discussion and it is in the form of a conclusion/consent then it can make a lot of sense to include more affected people.
if it is about finding a narrative, figuring out a shared understanding, few people are better.
@woodbark That seems to me to be a subtly different goal: finding concensus.
In which case it's not so much about having a conversation as coming to an agreement. It's not unrelated, though it's also not quite what I had in mind.
A very good observation though.
As I'd commented a few times and the hashtag should have made clear, this poll is about the "Marketplace of Ideas" concept, which in one interpretation seems to suggest that if you've got a contentious discussion, the apparently obvious solution is to expand it without limit.
(Other interpretations exist, including that arbitrarily limiting who can discuss a topic at all might be discriminatory, but the question as posed captures a flavour frequently encountered.)
On reflection, the notion does appear rather rediculous. I'd suggest that more contentious questions needs more structured, rather than less structured, discussion. Often with specific expertise or qualifications.
Doc Edward Morbius ⭕
Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿
Ferdi F. Zebua 🌏
zstix