If you hear someone outside science disparage the word 'consensus', they are talking about climate science - and the reference is not positive. 'Consensus' means a general agreement, of course, but to outsiders out to slam climate scientists, they think it means 'voting', in the best instance, and, in the worst it might mean that awful United Nations method of 'splitting the difference', which takes moral relativism to new heights and declares no one is right so everyone should be equally unhappy. In science, neither is true. No matter what you might think about the behavior or credibility of an individual scientist, no one has the kind of power to mandate their conclusions.
I'm writing a book, as some of you know, and I have a co-author. A 'serious' book is not the kind of thing I would write on my own but with a collaborator it is much easier because someone else's creativity can inspire me. Of course, the downside to collaboration is no one has authority so consensus is necessary. There is no first among equals.
It is imperative that we reach a consensus on not only the structure and tone but also the paragraphs and even word choices in each chapter, which means a collaboration is more work - you have to do the writing work and then rationalize it, something solo authors do not have to do until editing. You can't split the difference on word choice or entire expressions, you can't vote on what to include or not include. You also can't just say 'it is my way or nothing' because the check from the publisher already cleared, the marketing engine is rolling and they are out there selling this and finagling to get it space on bookstore shelves.
Instead, being forced into a consensus achieves one of two goals, both of which are quite positive, and this is why a consensus is not a bad word to scientists either.
Outcome 1. One of you changes your mind.
No one with the stamina to write long form, or the endurance to get a Ph.D., does it without having a stubborn streak. Unless you are the lady who wrote that Harry Potter thing, writing a book is not worth it monetarily and even she didn't start doing it expecting to make money. Yes, you may get a bestseller but compared to ordinary business peoples' incomes, it just doesn't pay. Writing a book and then learning what authors make is kind of like the horror people who spend all that money to become politicians must feel. You only write a book because you are right and you want to prove it. When you get two of those types of people working on something together, hilarity ensues.
A distraught George W. Bush, moments after learning of the salary that potentially awaits him, circa the year 2000 elections. Credit:The Onion
You don't think my comprehensive overview of the backdrop of Republicans and Nationalists in the 1936 Spanish Civil War is an allegory for the state of science today? Prove it. Maybe I love Proust references in a book about science. So what? You love making fun of Seattle.
When someone makes a good point, you have to change your mind. My Spanish Civil War segment did not make the cute, nor did the Proust references or the Chanson de Roland metaphor. Alex has also lost some things he loved. It's too bad there isn't an "outtakes" version of books like there is for movies on DVD. Then the masses could read those and agree we were absolutely right to take out huge swaths of clever prose that didn't do much to enhance the book, even if we loved them.
Outcome #2. Your argument improves.
Outcomes #1 sounds like a win for the other side, which is a somewhat negative approach to take - being correct should be more important than winning an argument. If you are in a group that has to reach a consensus and people bring up valid points you hadn't considered, your only choices are to scramble for an answer so you look clever or take some time and consider the point and see if you can trump it.
How a consensus works
I've been fortunate enough during my career to be around two groups of terrifically interesting, smart and funny people that most will not think have a lot in common; Army officers and scientists. Well, they do have a lot in common, even though more Army officers are considered right wing and more scientists are considered left wing. What they have in common is determination and passion. It's obvious why they have to have those things; both are wildly underpaid. They also both have to reach a consensus on occasion.
In those groups, sometimes a mutual decision has to be made. You may think in the military some General just issues an order and that's that but in reality there is an entire elaborate process - he has a cadre of people he trusts to varying degrees, and he respects to varying degrees, but he knows that input and creativity are important, no matter where it comes from - 'even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while' the saying goes, so even the worst member of a group can provide valuable insight. On down the chain of command the way an order is executed is left up to subordinate officers. It is somewhat impossible to be a micromanager in the military.
In a group you will have the following recognizable archetypes:
The Firebrand. Sam Adams was the firebrand of the American Revolution, but there is a reason he got sent back home after the war was over. It's the same reason Fidel Castro stuck Che Guevara under an airport landing strip in Bolivia. They never stop fighting. But when there is fighting to be done, they are essential.
