Disagreement: A Goldilocks Zone Hypothesis

The Goldilocks Zone Hypothesis of Disagreement

Disagreement between two parties is caused by conflicting values and beliefs. The extent of disagreement varies on a scale from all values and beliefs conflicting to none.

If there is no disagreement, then co-operation comes easily. Neither party’s values or beliefs are altered by the relationship, and their normal behaviour remains unchanged.  For this reason, stagnation also occurs.

If there is too much disagreement, then co-operation becomes impossible. This is because the adaptive effort required of an individual or organisation outweighs the benefits of co-operation. In such circumstances the two parties will not voluntarily interact. They may, however, engage in positive competition directed at a third party. If obliged to interact, then they will normally engage in negative competition, and this may ultimately lead to conflict.

However, between these two extremes lies a Goldilocks Zone. If there is “just enough” disagreement, then the two parties will either compromise or work out a consensus that enables them to cooperate, and progress will be made.

This principle applies to the internal relationships within an individual, external relationships between individuals, and relationships between organisations, including businesses and nations.

As individuals, we are content if there are no internal conflicts between our own beliefs or values and those that we must subscribe to. However, we do not develop, grow, or mature. If there are some manageable conflicts, then we can reconcile them and in so doing, we grow. However, if there are too many, then this causes distress, indecision and, in extreme cases, mental ill health. We can sometimes manage extreme internal conflicts by ignoring their existence, rationalising, etc., but we cannot escape them, and they can affect our decision-making and behaviour.

When two individuals interact, total agreement enables us to co-operate, and we are easy in one another’s company, but we do not grow from the relationship, and can become bored with it. Just a little disagreement, however, challenges our values and beliefs, causes us to review and perhaps revise them, and thus, we grow. If there is too much disagreement however, the effort of revising our mental schema becomes too great. Thus, we will often ignore or avoid one another. If obliged to interact, for example regarding property ownership, then we can become intractable and may engage in heated, or even violent argument. Academic and religious differences are examples of intractable beliefs that can lead to very heated disagreement.

When two organisations interact the same is true. Their values and beliefs are a part of their organisational culture. The equivalent of the individual’s mental schema is the organisation’s culture and institutions, which, while some modification is possible in the case of minor disagreements, can be immovable in the case of major ones.

There are two foundations for this hypothesis, the British psychologist, Frederik Bartlett’s (1886- 1969) theories of remembering, and evolutionary theory.

In his 1932 book, “Remembering”, Bartlett explained that we hold knowledge, which of course includes values and beliefs, in mental schemata. He also showed experimentally that we remember those things that are consistent with our existing schemata, and forget or modify those things that are not. This is because our memory comprises biological connections between brain cells and, any change requires the physical removal and reconstruction of those connections. Thus, revising our values and beliefs requires significant biological effort.

Regarding evolutionary theory, in biological evolution, genes can mutate at random, due for example to copying errors when cells split, virus infections, or the effect of radiation. If there is no mutation, then any asexual offspring will simply be clones of the parent. If there is a little mutation, then this can be harmful, neutral, or beneficial to the offspring. If there is too much mutation at one time, then it will almost certainly be harmful. However, minor neutral or beneficial mutations can accumulate over time. This ultimately leads to speciation, that is, several species that cannot interbreed arising from a single one.

Social evolution emulates biological evolution, but rather than using genes, it uses memes, i.e., our values and beliefs. In the same way as biological evolution some “mutation” of memes is necessary for social evolution to take place. A little disagreement can be accommodated within a culture and helps it to develop. “Mutations” that are beneficial or neutral are retained and those that are harmful are abandoned. However, eventually, minor beneficial or neutral differences accumulate to a point where they cannot be accommodated and the culture divides. When the human population was relatively small, these new cultures could migrate and put geographical distance between them. Religious minorities, for example, migrated from Europe to America. In this way conflict was minimised and different cultures spread across the world. However, in the present-day, unoccupied territory is hard to find, if it exists at all. Furthermore, complex economic interdependencies bind us to our society far more strongly than was historically the case.  We are therefore more likely to meet and interact with others who hold values and beliefs different to our own. The risk of conflict has therefore increased. Examples include: the Russia/ Ukraine war, which is essentially about authoritarian versus democratic government, and the ownership of energy resources; the cultural divide in the USA; and even the current Western “woke/ anti-woke” debate.

People are, of course, attempting to find ways to extend the Goldilocks Zone. These attempts have met with mixed success, and I will discuss them in a future article. However, for the present, it is sensible to understand that people who have held a belief for most of their lives, and organisations that have long benefitted from a particular form of behaviour will not readily change. Forceful efforts to make them do so will almost certainly be greeted with an adverse reaction. So, it is sensible to walk away from situations likely to lead to conflict if you can. Also, if you wish to bring someone around to your views, then it is best to present your arguments at a slow and steady pace, and in chunks that can be easily consumed.

Finally, the way in which we disagree is important and guidance can be found at http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html with a helpful diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#/media/File:Graham’s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg

The Relationship between the Goldilocks Zone Hypothesis of Disagreement, Groupthink, and Spreadthink.

With thanks to Matthew Shapiro for highlighting this relationship.

The terms groupthink and spreadthink are normally used in the context of decision-making by groups of individuals who have convened to address an issue of interest. Groupthink applies when all members have common beliefs and values regarding the issue. In these circumstances, it is relatively easy for the group to come to agreement. Spreadthink applies when the members have such different beliefs and values that agreement cannot be reached. Between the two is a goldilocks zone in which some effort is needed to reach agreement, but the outcome better addresses the issue.

However, the concept of spreadthink can be defined more generally as “the inability of a group of individuals, organisations, or even nations to agree on matters they have convened to address, due to irreconcilable differences in their values and beliefs”. The concept of groupthink can be generalized in much the same way.

There is a relationship between the goldilocks zone hypothesis and both groupthink and spreadthink. Extreme spreadthink can be defined as super-optimal disagreement between every pair of members of the group. That is, disagreement that is greater than that of the goldilocks zone. Extreme groupthink can be defined as sub-optimal disagreement between every pair of members of the group. That is disagreement that is less than that of the goldilocks zone.

In practice, however, both extremes are rarely encountered. It is rare for all interactions between group members to be ones of full agreement. It is also rare for all interactions to be ones of irreconcilable disagreement. The latter does not mean, however, that a group will be effective in addressing their issue of interest. For example, there may be sufficient interactions lying within or below the goldilocks zone to form two or more sub-groups – each subgroup comprising members with common relevant values and beliefs. These sub-groups then become components of the group. Super-optimal disagreement between them can cause a failure to address the issue of interest. It can also cause the group to split. It can even cause conflict.

The concepts of the goldilocks zone, groupthink, and spreadthink are clearly important in explaining social interactions at all levels, from the individual to the nation. I think that they warrants further investigation, therefore.