TAKE PART IN AN ON-GOING EXPERIMENT! Systemic Consensus - How can people better participate in democratic processes?

Do you know the game "The Journey to Jerusalem"?

It is the game with chairs, where there is always one chair less than the number of players on the field. As long as the music is playing, the participants walk in circles around the row of chairs until the music ends spontaneously and everyone sits down quickly, so as not to be the one who can't get a chair anymore. The goal of the game is to be the last one left, while all other players are eliminated.

^{picture source}

I don't know how you felt about it, but I only liked this game when I won. But if I had lost and dropped out early, this game was no fun at all.

It makes many feel like losers and only one or two feel like winners.

The majority has a sense of defeat, while a minority has a sense of victory.

Changing the game

This game can also be played differently by changing the conditions so that they promote cooperation rather than opposition. Then the game goes like this: The chairs stand there as usual, the music plays and as soon as it stops, the participants are asked not to let their feet touch the ground for three seconds, regardless of whether they have chosen a chair for two or three people. This change in the rule means that the players make fun of occupying the dwindling chairs with as many people as possible - i.e. not wanting to lose anyone. For example, a play group managed to occupy the last remaining chair with 13 people. The players did not have to hurry, but only master the only task "not to touch the ground for 3 seconds". By the design of the game, no time limit was set.

^{picture source}

The first variation of the game creates egoism, competition and an unconditional will to win. The second creates group orientation and cooperation and a sense of community in which no one has lost anything but all have won something: to have solved a challenging situation together creatively.

The second game represents in a much better way the understanding of democracy in its sense of participation. Nobody is better or worse, everyone helps or is helped, depending on need and inclination.

In a similar way, not only games, but also other group topics can be processed.

For example, in the group decision it is important in which way multiple people agree on something where there are several variants to choose from. Naturally, a group of friends does not necessarily decide according to the majority principle if one or two members of the group raise concerns about a particular option. The friends usually reach a consensus when they briefly discuss the resistance among themselves and then agree on a decision that reflects the least resistance of all participants.

If, however, it is not close friends but strangers or colleagues who are to agree, a consensus is not always easy to reach, and often long and fierce discussions take place, since the participants usually go by their personal preference when choosing a possible option and then try to argue this.

But what if you choose another method that is very close to consensus? A very interesting method is "Systemic Consensoring/Consensus" (SC).

Here is a simple example:

Four work colleagues discuss to eat together in a restaurant. Mark chooses the Greek restaurant, Andre the Italian, Peter the German and Paul the Chinese. Now it's time to come to an agreement. Systemic consensus is not based on personal preference, but the other way around - whereby everyone would of course prefer a personal choice - one proceeds to a proposal based on the least perceived inner resistance.

The least resistance is given the value W 0 (no resistance against the proposal), the largest the value W 10 (one is totally against this proposal). Intermediate values are assigned according to feeling.

The value in the chart created with the smallest common resistance then gives the decision. The colleagues go to the restaurant, whereas the lowest resistance has been determined.

The grey row represents "everything stays as it is" or "it would be okay if we didn't go out for dinner". For example, if, after a long working day, the colleagues think about having dinner together, but don't mind simply going home and putting the restaurant visit on another occasion.

In this simple example, this grey option doesn't make much sense. But it becomes important on other topics and constellations when all the possible choices trigger more resistance than when everything remains unchanged, i.e. everything remains as it is.

The advantage of such an approach is that you can express yourself in absolute numbers (0 and 10), but the intermediate values are also reflected. So I can be totally against one option in my choice, while I find fewer arguments against several other options. I can make a different weighting. Thus this method corresponds to a reality also felt in everyday life, in which we are willing to think about certain options instead of being forced from the outside to simply follow our preference and give all power to a single option.

The path of least resistance

finds a meaning here which it seems to have lost in the meantime. For in some places, a strategy that chooses "the least resistance" is also understood to mean the "laziest".

But here it becomes clear that this is not the case. It has nothing to do with laziness, but with a reasonable argument, which causes the least pain and the ability to differentiate such presumed pain.

How does egocentrism perform?

Consensualism becomes particularly clear when someone behaves very selfishly and, for example, only gives a 0 to his own preference, while he gives a 10 to all other possibilities. This self-interested behaviour only works if we are dealing with majority voting, but not with the systemic method.

Power-oriented people could still try to help their own desired solution break through by giving it 0 W votes and rejecting all other proposals with 10. This is called "Strategic Consensing". Thus these strategy often enough fires back.

An example: A family - the parents and their two children - sit at the lunch table. It is to be decided, what it is to be given as next to eat. The family consents for it for the first time and the children decide to strategically consense - smart as they think they are:

Result: The meal "Vegetable loaf". Now the children's howling of protest begins: they both don't like the vegetable loaves at all and none of their wishes have been fulfilled. But why? What happened?

Whoever rejects all other proposals, except his own, undifferentiated with 10 W-votes each, often misses his chance to influence the decision positively for himself, if his own proposal does not get a chance. He often leaves the decision to the others.

The result actually looks as if only the parents had reached a consensus.
The parents explain these relations to the children. The children understand immediately - because, after all, they are smart - and according to their desire consensus is renewed. This time they only give the food 10 W voices, which really hurt them. They have understood that the best way to represent one's own interest in consensus is to evaluate the suggestions of others according to one's own needs. This is the result:

Now even the children are happy! Since the son now gave an honest 4 W vote for the Pizza, it was agreed and there is the least dissatisfaction in the family.

No chance for power-hungry people

Those who reach a strategic consensus provide less decision information and risk a factual abstention. Thus selfish attitudes in the SC often harm those who put on this kind of attitude to a large extent. Consensus is therefore a non-coercive decision-making instrument.

Consensuality in politics

Majority elections in politics cause power struggles and create a hostile, often even aggressive fighting mood. In a so-called "systemic consensus culture", however, there would be no majority competition, since even the smallest parties could reach the proposal with the least rejection through a deliberate willingness to compromise in parliament. This would help the parliamentarians to decide more peacefully, but above all to serve the people better. The focus would be less on the party and more on the proposal presented.

Whether in political elections or other majority decisions: I never had the impression that there were actually winners. The supposed winners are confronted with the envy and resentment of the losers, the victory celebrations are overshadowed by the miserable divergence of the losing parties, and a (large) minority does not feel well represented at all in elections that ended particularly close.

In general, election campaigns have an almost militant atmosphere, opinions are transported into the public eye by hook or by crook, election battles and debates take place, which are embarrassingly and populistically inflated to catch votes. The use of language alone is more reminiscent of a military act than a democratic one.

How different majority voting would be from a systemic consensual election would intrigue me. I am sure the results would differ significantly. Provided that there is a variety of choices.

---

E X P E R I M E N T

Now, let's try this out.

Let's pretend that we want to unite an organization of a readership of a large media and publishing house and reflect our notions to the company. How would we ever agree on the statements? In real life, a group would work out the statements together.

In this experiment with some choices I have just devised, I would like to count your votes in this consensual procedure.
Please give me your individual scores for each of the following statements from W0 to W10.

What does your inner resistance say about the following statements of "Risk Journalism"?

Note: "Risk Journalism" refers to journalistic risk reporting, such as a nuclear, environmental, technological risks and events (power plants, artificial intelligence, biotech, nuclear, war, diseases, traffic). The term "Risk Journalism" is used to refer to the reporting of risks by a journalist. Take into account the publications after such an event and those who talk about dangers in the future. Also, include all publications, not only yellow press but also specialist magazines and other media formats. Give also information about the country you are located. This country information I would like to collect for my own curiosity.

Please read very carefully. Try to give an honest, non-strategic assessment.

W 0 = least resistance

W 10 = maximum resistance

---

1. Risk journalism should reach objectivity to an almost absolute extent.

2. Risk journalism leads to catastrophic decisions on the part of politicians and companies.

3. Risk journalism has less influence on political and entrepreneurial decisions than is commonly assumed.

4. Risk journalism should contain subjective voices within its publications.

5. Risk journalism should be based only on scientific research results.

6. Risk journalists should consider scientists as well as laymen and other professionals in their reporting.

7. A certain sensationalism in risk journalism is necessary because only numbers and facts do not raise enough awareness.

8. Sensationalism is harmful to every publication in risk journalism, even though a reporting contains correct facts & figures

9. Science and Scientists should not be the superior sources of risk journalism

10. Risk journalism is needed

11. Risk journalism is not needed

12. The general readership is a homogeneous group that can be easily influenced.

13. The general readership is a heterogeneous group reflecting a variety of views.

I will transfer your data into a chart and publish the totals. These should show an interesting result regarding the importance and evaluation of risk journalism. I am very excited about the final outcome!

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ANY TIME. When I have collected enough date, I will publish the results. It means this is a project extended. To make it easy for you I give my results down there in the comment section, so you can copy the form and insert your own results. If you prefer to participate anonymously just give me a sign on discord and I will take your numbers through the chat channel.

I very much hope to get many participants!

The subject of systemic consensus is far more complex and detailed than I have described here. However, I have decided not to make a scientific contribution, as I attach greater importance to participation in this experiment. Perhaps I will make a follow-up contribution to it. However, the topic offers so few scientific sources, and certainly not in English, that the references were very sparse anyway. It is a very new concept, maybe 15 years old and it was developed, as far as I have researched, in Austria.

Self evidences

It should also be clear, however, that it is not a new concept in a real sense, because it is so self-evident that we among friends - and the word friendship already says it - automatically choose such a consensus-driven method when we look forward to group decisions, that we are not even aware that we are doing such a thing. It is precisely these self-evidences in our lives that are in fact the most difficult to track down and grasp in a formal methodology, since we often intuitively do the right thing without being aware of it.

If we say that technology can always be used in just as useful and helpful a way as it can be used in a harmful and terrorist way, then we can say the same of people. Neither is technology hostile or evil in itself, nor are humans. It always depends on how likely hostile or cooperative behavior is, and that depends on the design and framework - and the rules it creates or precedes.

---

^{Second Picture:
Photographer: Japanese photographer around 1890
Place of storage: Hanover
Collection: Ludwig Hoerner Collection}

---

Thank you for participation!