https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

But it didn't start out that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality

That explains a lot. You are looking at the word consensus through the lens of specific ideology rather than by any conventional connotation or denotation. It is a cultural specific nomenclature that influences your sacrosanct idea of the words meaning to you. Much in the my usage of logic. You are right, we are not talking about the same thing at all. Because I do not define the word (my connotation) through that lens at all. We would not be able to have a proper context. We would first have to decide how we were going to define that word to have context.

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. In fact neither of us are right or wrong. It is just a different point of view. And that diversity is what makes life so interesting. It has been a pleasure chatting with you. Thanks, for taking the time to enlighten an old man to your point of view.

Thanks for clarifying the first point.

We can agree to disagree, that is fine, though I am not understanding your rational. We have a consensus that we stop at red lights and go at green lights, and that consensus is written into laws. Most of our society is based on consensus, our traffic regulations, laws etc. If people did what they felt like doing at intersections then that would be a disaster. It seems to me that you are using a very exclusive connotation of the word consensus. Though that is fine as well. I do it myself so I am not going to judge. For instance when I hear the word logic I think logic circuits, boolean logic in programming etc. I really see logic applied to true or false yes or no scenarios. Everything else to me is rational not logic. This is not correct, it is just the way I am wired after decades of working in fields that use the word that way. So as stated we can agree to disagree and all is well.

Please do not take this out of context. I am not attacking or even questioning you. I just found your comment thought provoking so ... consider this thinking out loud. If you would like to comment back then I would appreciate that. If not that is okay as well. Please, take no offense, I am just an old man trying to better understand what you have said, and why you have said it .

Nelson wrote:

Consensus is great in my context as a (sometimes practicing) Quaker, with a culture built around managing consensus.

Hmmm, that sounds rather dubious, though perhaps I am just misunderstanding what you are trying to say? To me managing consensus sounds a lot like making sure everyone believes what you want them to believe. To discourage skepticism. That really sounds bad. Perhaps I just do not get what you mean by that phrase?

Nelson wrote:

But I know I live in a weird bubble and most people have never encountered a consensus process in real life, and maybe have never heard of consensus decision-making.

Not such a weird bubble at all. Whether they use that label consensus process or not nearly everyone experiences it on a daily basis. What should we have for dinner? What restaurant should be go to? How should this article be worded so that the most people will understand and enjoy it (eg. author editor relationship). Our dictionary of the English language is quite literally a consensus to what the words could mean if we do not consider sarcasm, metaphor, idioms, colloquialisms, etc ... In fact consensus is built into most everyone's life in one way or the other, unless you happen to be a hermit . Consensus is not a bad thing nor a good thing. It is a tool that is sometimes useful and in other times quite harmful. Traditions are consensus on how we behave and even how we may dress etc. They can have some value and they can mute progress all together if those traditions are not managed correctly. It would be weird in fact to find someone that has not experienced a very consensus driven life.

Nelson wrote:

(Also consensus doesn't always mean unanimity.)

That is very true as consensus rarely means unanimity. It merely means the majority in most cases.

Consensus is fine, unanimity is a bad sign.

Is it because the members took the time to address everyone's concerns? Is it because the building is surrounded by soldiers who will shoot anyone who dissents?

Without the context of why the decision is unanimous, it's impossible to say whether it's good or bad.

Was Galileo Galilei wrong because he disagreed with the the consensus? Does the universe revolve around the Earth? Is the world flat? As that was the consensus. Should we bring back the law of Constant Proportion? It was the consensus for so long.

I am not so sure that a unanimous decision is any more qualified than any other decision. History has taught us that we can get a group of people to believe just about anything, especially if that is what they want to believe in the first place. Now I do not consider it bad. I mean it is great when we can all agree on what is for dinner! But it just has no value outside of that scope. Truth by consensus is a naturally flawed rational.