Talk:Abilene paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doesn't quite sound like a proper logical paradox. Evercat 22:07 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
I agree, but it was on the "paradox" page, so I figured I should at least make a stub for it. user:J.J.
Preferential voting isn't an example at all, right? If the actor has complete knowledge, the Abilene paradox doesn't occur. With perferential voting, we are just seeing an aspect of Arrow's paradox, right? Paullusmagnus
- As I read it this example isn't about Arrow's paradox either, it's about a voter who doesn't understand how preferential voting works. Either way, it's not a good Abilene example. Pm67nz
-
- The description sounds more like strategic voting than preferential voting. There is no mention of rank ordering ones preferences. It describes voting for a candidate for strategic reasons even though that is not your preferred candidate. I am going to change it to strategic voting. mydogategodshat 01:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] which candidate?
The paradox is sometimes also used as a criticism of the strategic voting. For example, say a person wants to vote for Candidate C, yet realistically realizes that Candidate C will never beat the much more popular Candidates A and B. The person thus votes for Candidate A, a less desirable choice, but the best alternative to Candidate C. The voter has thus committed the Abilene Paradox by performing an action that contradicts his or her preference.
Unless I am confused, I think this should say The person thus votes for Candidate A, a less desirable choice, but the best alternative to Candidate B
Because the person wanted candidate C but preferred A over B so he voted for A, right? Suppafly 04:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I've removed this entire from the article, since, as some other users also pointed out above on this talk page, preferential or strategic voting in this case is not an example of the Abilene paradox. This example does not apply because it would only apply if all or a majority of the voters for Candidate A all preferred Candidate C; this is not the case in this example, wherein a single voter prefers Candidate C but votes for Candidate A because Candidate C has no chance of winning. —Lowellian (talk) 00:05, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with a reference
The first reference shown (complete list reproduced below) is in error. The title of the article as shown is the same as Harvey's 1988 book, but in fact it should be "The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement." However, when I edit the page to correct the reference, the first reference doesn't appear! So I'm stymied.
Here is how the references appear now:
^ Harvey, Jerry B. (Summer 1974). "The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management". Organizational Dynamics 3 (1). Harvey, Jerry B. (1988). The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. Harvey, Jerry B. (1999). How Come Every Time I Get Stabbed In The Back, My Fingerprints Are on The Knife?. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox"
[edit] Which researchers found what when?
"Researchers in this field have proposed various means by which groups can avoid such dysfunctional behavior. None have proven more effective than the inclusion of people with diverse backgrounds in the decision-making process. Groups so comprised tend to be more effective in avoiding the Abilene Paradox and tend to be able to make much better decisions overall."
Sounds nice. Supports the intuition that diverse backgrounds can be helpful. Any evidence? Where? If it's mentioned in the references linked for the article as a whole, shouldn't we hunt down the primary sources and cite them directly? -Dmh 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, but it's easy for me to accept that group dynamics aren't immutable, but are a function of culture. For example, if my wife's Caribbean relatives were in that Abilene situation I'm sure one of them would respond, "You mad, man! Me, I not going to that damn hot place!" And that would be that. -Steve Foerster 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)