Thoughts – Two is Company, Three is a Crowd

I have spoken before on the subject of sharing our ideas in public. I have spoken about having a Thought Identity, how to have an Open Mind and how to apply these factors to the world around you.

What becomes a much harder task to fulfil is when we have more than two distinct Thoughts in a single conversation. When we deal with two thought processes, two different takes on a certain topic, we need to negotiate and find a middle ground. We observe what the one party needs and what the other party needs. We can find a compromise.

When a third thought type is added to a conversation then compromise is not so simple. There is no longer a simple give and take. There is no longer an easy middle ground where everyone can be made happy. There is also the case of, between two people a certain issue is acceptable and understood. But in a crowd, the need for appearances might make us act differently.

Let's look at some examples of this.

Finite Values

When dealing with an agreement based on numbers, two parties can agree on a happy middle ground. Especially when numbers are not too far apart. However, this is not so easy when adding a third criteria

This is because the third set of values will inevitably be closer to one of the original numbers.

Example: When we have two people sharing an office space and they decide what the temperature should be set to, Person A could say that they like it to be 25C, while Person B says that they prefer a temperature of about 20C.

Right down the middle between these two is 22.5C. Even though the international building medium average is 22C, there are still people out there that prefer it to be different to this norm.

Regardless of this fact, the third person arrives in the office and states that the temperature is the best when set to 24C. Now, 22.5C is no longer the exact middle ground between the three numbers.

The true average is now 23C. This may seem small, but to Person B, who prefers it to be 20C, this is a step in the wrong direction.

In the form of a binary vote, a third person does the same thing. Either both A and B voted yes or no, making their vote unanimous. Or they voted opposites. One for and the other against. The third person can vote against the unanimous decision, or the vote that is at a tie can be swayed in either direction by the third party.

Acceptance

We live in a day and age where certain thoughts that were previously taboo or sensitive were swept under the carpet and covered up. Now it is becoming a trend to come forward with these ideas.

However, I have seen that when a certain friend takes a clear stance about an issue in private with me one moment, the next moment when a third person arrives they change their minds. This is because they are worried about what this other person might think of them and what they might say to others.

Thus we are thrown backward in our attempt to gain progress when exploring new things with someone because a third person puts our choices not in the viewpoint as an individual, but as a collective. We have gone from private to public and the way that we behave in public often changes drastically.

How do we use this knowledge?

So, in conclusion, we can see very much how the situation changes between having two people involved in a conversation and when there are three people in the conversation.

If we keep this in mind, we can use it as a social benchmark when we wish to explore a certain field of thought with others. You can speak to several people privately about this controversial topic. Then you can speak to the whole crowd of the same issue again. Do so with a crowd that you had already seen privately and then another group that has never heard of the concept before.

The results of their reactions should give you the conclusion of whether or not your concept is ready for launch into the world.

All Image credits to pexels.com

Part of my 60-day article challenge

Follow / Upvote / Share

Steemit Blog
Whaleshares Blog
Weku Blog