I appreciate the revision. It's difficult, it's a fine balance to strike, but for me personally I feel much more comfortable knowing that there's at least one person who wants to understand all angles, even the ones they don't agree with or don't necessarily know all the information about. It makes me more inclined to share. My hope is that it makes others feel the same, or at least plants the seeds for that honesty someday in the future.
I do think that sort of meeting could be arranged, although it would have to be done with some thought to various complicating factors. Privacy and group size are the most significant issues, to my mind. Eighty people is far too many to engage in a conversation like this. Ten is too many. Ten groups of eight might be doable, although of course some people won't want to participate.
Privacy will depend on how Oska looks once the dust settles, as you say. I'll think more on it; there's only so much one can enforce in a group this size, because people gossip, but there are ways to at least mitigate it if we're cautious. And then the final factor is ensuring that the groups are evenly distributed with respect to outlook. I feel there will be far more people in the idealist camp than any other, for a number of reasons including the aforementioned fact that I believe those with a more pessimistic or even realistic viewpoint are less likely to be willing to subject themselves to condescension and ridicule by the majority. Even so, all that can be done is that we make an effort to adjust for such discrepancies and make things as even-keeled as possible.
Would you be willing to work together with me on this? I realize you said you aren't sure whether you're the right person to lead on this, but your response has been among the least vitriolic and most thoughtful, and frankly there are a lot of people on this team I don't trust to be thoughtful, much less unbiased, on this matter.
no subject
I do think that sort of meeting could be arranged, although it would have to be done with some thought to various complicating factors. Privacy and group size are the most significant issues, to my mind. Eighty people is far too many to engage in a conversation like this. Ten is too many. Ten groups of eight might be doable, although of course some people won't want to participate.
Privacy will depend on how Oska looks once the dust settles, as you say. I'll think more on it; there's only so much one can enforce in a group this size, because people gossip, but there are ways to at least mitigate it if we're cautious. And then the final factor is ensuring that the groups are evenly distributed with respect to outlook. I feel there will be far more people in the idealist camp than any other, for a number of reasons including the aforementioned fact that I believe those with a more pessimistic or even realistic viewpoint are less likely to be willing to subject themselves to condescension and ridicule by the majority. Even so, all that can be done is that we make an effort to adjust for such discrepancies and make things as even-keeled as possible.
Would you be willing to work together with me on this? I realize you said you aren't sure whether you're the right person to lead on this, but your response has been among the least vitriolic and most thoughtful, and frankly there are a lot of people on this team I don't trust to be thoughtful, much less unbiased, on this matter.