The tenth man rule: what is it and what does it bring to group reflection?

The tenth man rule aims to make group reflection processes work better.

What would happen if the unthinkable became reality? Sometimes, during the creative process, everyone on a team comes to the same conclusions, perhaps because the issue seems to have an obvious solution.

This can lead to an early solution, but it can also lead to the discarding of alternatives that may be unthinkable, but are not impossible.

The tenth man rule is a tactic where if several people reach consensus, to make sure that conclusion is not a big mistake, someone takes it upon themselves to sow doubt and come up with alternatives. We'll look at it much more clearly below.

What is the tenth man rule?

The tenth man rule is a common sense tactic that holds that, if in a group of ten people nine have unanimously come to a conclusion, the tenth person should be obliged to assume that the other nine in the group are wrong, even if he or she fundamentally agrees.The tenth person should be obliged to assume that the other nine in the group are wrong, even if he or she fundamentally agrees with them. This tenth person should do everything possible to prove that the others are wrong, and look for alternatives to what the group as a whole has stipulated.

It should be said that this way of working is not exclusively applicable to groups with ten people. This tactic can be used in much smaller groups of at least three or four people. As long as there is a majority, the tenth man rule can be used, with that person (whether third, fourth...) being the one who questions what the others have said. the one who questions what the others have so unequivocally agreed upon..

The logic of defending a thesis contrary to what the majority of the group has agreed upon, despite even agreeing with it, is to to be prepared for a possible eventuality or improbable thesis, to analyze scenarios that do not even remotely seem conceivable, and to drawto analyze scenarios that do not even remotely seem conceivable and to draw conclusions to address the unthinkable. Thinking in this way prevents the group from making thinking errors, such as argumentative bias or homogeneous thinking.

Origins of the rule

The origin of this rule is uncertain, but it is true that it has become popular thanks to the movie the movie the movie World War Zdirected by Marc Foster (2013), a film adaptation of the book of the same name by Max Brooks.

In the film, starring Brad Pitt playing the role of Gerry Lane, the world is on the verge of collapse due to an epidemic that is turning humanity into zombies. All countries are desperate to deal with the new threat, except one: Israel. This state has built walls to protect itself from the infected, long before the outbreak actually broke out.

When asked how it was possible for Israel to be prepared for such a remotely plausible event, one of the country's intelligence officers, Jurgen Warmbrunn, explains that the reason they anticipated such an unlikely event was because of the tenth man rule.

He explains that In a security council, if nine of the ten members were in agreement, the tenth man was obliged to propose situations that were contrary to the consensus. to what was agreed upon. At one point, the impossibility of a zombie attack was raised, whereupon the tenth member proposed just the opposite, that it would be a real threat. This motivated the creation of security systems for such an eventuality, despite the fact that at first an attack by the living dead was not believed to be real.

Relationship with the argumentative theory

The tenth man rule is closely related to a concept of psychology, the argumentative theory. This theory says that, in reality, people do not reason with the intention of proving something as true, but to use arguments as a means to defend their beliefs. use arguments as a means of defending our beliefs and opinions, however mistaken they may be..

People, once we have made up our minds, look for arguments to defend that belief. In other words, we are victims of a strong confirmation bias. We look for anything that confirms our hypothesis or way of seeing the world, and anything that refutes or disproves it, that threatens our "logic", we reject or ignore. Just thinking about what is in line with our way of seeing the world can make us wrong, causing us to make bad decisions.

When we discuss an issue with others, who may or may not agree with our point of view, everyone's confirmation biases balance out together, everyone's confirmation biases are balanced out as a whole.. This makes our way of thinking, being contrasted with those of others, makes us understand that maybe we are wrong or not and we change our opinion or open our mind a little.

The problem, and this is what would be related to the tenth man rule, is that if everyone or almost everyone thinks the same way, there is a risk that everyone, as a group, will make the same mistakes. This may be because everyone in the group comes from the same culture, has the same tastes, beliefs, education, field of study....

This is why it is so important that, in any creative process, the group is made up of a multidisciplinary team, preferably from different cultural backgrounds.preferably from different cultural backgrounds. By contrasting different ways of seeing the world, non-dogmatic ideas are generated, which contributes to reaching a safer and more democratic decision.

What does it contribute?

Closely related to the argumentative theory, applying the tenth man rule, whatever the size of the group, can be very useful during group reflection, can be very useful during group reflection.. This is because it is a very good way to include in the creative process, whatever it is, an argument that can be a breath of fresh air, open horizons and avoid dogmatism or the group as a whole. There are two main advantages of this methodology.

It avoids relaxation

It prevents the group from becoming intellectually relaxed.That is, they do not take a certain proposal for granted and consider it as the definitive solution.

If there is someone who questions it, the rest of the group can rethink their own vision, reviewing what had been proposed and accepting the possibility that they may have been hasty.

Out of the comfort zone

As the consensus solution is challenged, the challenger must defend his or her own viewpoint of opinion, even if he or she does not support it inwardly. However, by doing so, forces himself out of his comfort zone, which can give rise to very creative and imaginative ideas..

The Simpsons... did they predict it?

We all know how famous The SimpsonsThe Simpsons, an American series directed by Matt Groening, is known for its predictive ability. There are many episodes in which X thing is done and, after a few years, it has happened. We are not talking about something as common as a celebrity passing away, but more complex things that, at first glance, would be unthinkable.

To name a few: Donald Trump wins the presidency of the United States, the iPod is created, Disney buys 20th Century Fox, rigged voting machines, Lady Gaga performs at the Superbowl, a virus of Chinese origin generates a pandemic, (spoiler warning) Daenerys Targaryen wipes out King's Landing...

All of these things are mentioned in the series, years before they came to pass. Many have even theorized that Matt Groening has some link to the Illuminati or that the series was made from predictions by Nostradamus. However, it is possible that the explanation for all this is much simpler, being related to the tenth man rule.

Surely, in the creative process of each episode, when discussing what should go, in case the entire management team agrees, someone sows doubt or comes up with an idea that is really groundbreaking.. Perhaps all the episodes in which these "predictions", so unthinkable when they were first aired, were the result of someone wanting to do something that no one had imagined and, a few years later, the unthinkable became reality.

Bibliographical references.

• Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2010) Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 57-74, 2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1698090