Minority's report

In most common discourse on societal issues, the discussion of minorities typically refers to the ethnic, religious, or linguistic group that makes up less than half of the population of a country. 

However, this piece is scoped beyond that context, and refers to any sub-group of people with preferences, traits, or characteristics that are different from that which is embodied by the majority of the people in the considered set.

minority

/mʌɪˈnɒrɪti,mɪˈnɒrɪti/

noun

    1.

    the smaller number or part, especially a number or part representing less than half of the whole.

    "only a minority of properties are rented"

The principle that underlies the mechanism of the majority (half) and supermajority (two-thirds) votes, is that utility is maximised by catering to the most number of people. However, I hesitate to concur that this represents the most desirable or optimal outcome for any society, group, or decision-making scenario, thus engendering the consideration of minority representation.

I largely disagree that our nature is to defer to the majority preference. Rather, it may be possible that this is the more common observation only because it is statistically necessary to observe that there are more people with a majority opinion, by its definition, which also means that the views of the minority are less represented in influencing the outcome of the decision, since we can only consider what we know, and we often consider most what first comes to mind.

The availability heuristic, also known as availability bias, is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to a given person's mind when evaluating a specific topic, concept, method, or decision. Wikipedia

The script that is used by the majority in refutation of the minority stand, is also often hypocritically the same problems that the minority has with the majority view, only contextualised respectively.

Since we necessarily opine what we opine and want what we want, and even if we are influenced by the opinions of those immediately around us, it may be possible that our sample size of reference is not representative of the majority opinion, thus there is an equally fair chance that we comprise the majority or minority perspective. Therefore, the "sacrifice" of having to accommodate needs that are not yours applies to all sides of the debate, where the minority is accommodating to the majority, as much as the majority is "sacrificing" for the minority, effectively making this point of "sacrifice" moot; The preference of safety in comprising the majority betrays the underlying problematic mindset that the minority must accede to the majority's position without reciprocation in kind.

This may be a problem because not only does it go against the principle of fairness that is implicit to the conduct of a vote in the first place, but also that the best decision may not have been made.

The wisdom of the crowd, is more often than not, just the wisdom of somebody in the crowd, so the thoughts that gain the most traction and form the majority opinion may not necessarily be the best, but merely the loudest perspective. Thus, it may be possible that the "best wisdom" is relegated to the minority who shares these thoughts, and the decision made may not have considered valid points of the "thought minority" that may have swayed some majority voters to the other side, if only their points were more widely promulgated.

The tragedy of this situation is that this becomes especially disadvantageous in the most important scenarios, where the conundrum under debate is complex or nuanced, and the most sensible, sensitive solution may be subsided under the simplistic, sexy soundbite. Often, when faced with a difficult problem, we solve an easier one in its place, and become deludedly confident that we have solved anything at all.

"Each of us tends to think we see things as they are, that we are objective. But this is not the case. We see the world, not as it is, but as we are—or, as we are conditioned to see it. When we open our mouths to describe what we see, we in effect describe ourselves, our perceptions, our paradigms. When other people disagree with us, we immediately think something is wrong with them[...] Where we stand depends on where we sit."

― Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

Furthermore, a similar phenomenon may occur when the majority considers a strawman of the minority character or perspective. Unfortunately, this may be compounded by members of the sub-minority group who are not in alignment with the main-minority, but are merely in disagreement with the majority, conflating the often multi-faceted concerns of the main-minority. This may be a problem because it weakens the already weak position of the minority, and the majority may then erroneously or manipulatively rebut or dismiss this misrepresentation of concerns, claiming that they have addressed the minority perspective.

A strawman may be to an argument as a stereotype is to the persons of any subgroup. However, I think that unlike a strawman that is an informal fallacy antithetical to good argumentation, stereotypes are not inherently malign. 

Surprise and disappointment are reactions that imply that we have expectations, preconceived notions, and judgements that the reality of the situation then deviates from. Therefore, in interacting with it we create a mental model of the world through our observations, thus engendering the platitudes used to describe the young and inexperienced as "being sheltered" in a "rosy world".

Since we all have biases and prejudice shaped by our experiences, so I posit that the people who claim that they are unbiased, objective, and non-judgemental, are actually the more dangerous ones, because they're not even aware of it, and thus cannot act in compensation for their behaviour, as they do not even consider the possibility that they may have exhibited the very tendencies that they claim to have tamed.

Consider the possibility that the cause of perpetuation of negative stereotypes, is because of the people who actually embody them, which in this context, can refer to the misaligned sub-minority that is conflated with the main-minority. From personal experience (sample size:1), I'm often not convinced on the "validity" or "real-world reflection value" of stereotypes, until we observe first-hand any behaviour that demonstrates thusly, so it may be possible that the stereotypes are "unactivated" until negative experience, especially if the stereotype descriptions are incredulous, which they often are.

inclusion

/ɪnˈkluːʒn/

noun

    1.

    the action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure.

    "they have been selected for inclusion in the scheme"

    2.

    the practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those who have physical or intellectual disabilities and members of other minority groups.

    "we value and promote diversity and inclusion in every aspect of our business"

I opine that we commonly misunderstand the principle of inclusion, which translates to using the wrong markers of success, thereby confounding the measure with the mission. 

I think that the degree of success of the pursuit of inclusion should not be measured by the greater number of people now included than before, but rather by how many fewer people now remain excluded; the success of total inclusion is not in increasing the catered majority, but in reducing the neglected minority to "zero" within the same defined set of people, by recognising their concerns and addressing their needs. 

Though true total inclusion may be unfeasible to achieve when considering the very fringe cases, this functional "zero" aspect is especially important because it may be possible that a decreasing minority pool can thus face greater perceived systemic discrimination by omission.

Therefore, the accommodation of minority needs must be all-inclusive, not through the additive provisions catering to each sub-minority, but by the redefinition of the solution to seek the common ground between all the rational sub-minorites in reconciliation with the majority.

In doing so, we must be careful not to fall into the trap of the false dichotomy, and consider the possibility that meeting the needs of the majority and minority are not mutually exclusive. The mindset that the not-your-side is seeking to shortchange you, is also symptomatic of a deeper root cause of low-trust. 

The difference between a high- and low-trust relationship is palpable!

Take communication. In a high-trust relationship, you can say the wrong thing, and people will still get your meaning. In a low-trust relationship, you can be very measured, even precise, and they'll still misinterpret you.

― Stephen R. Covey, The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything

Of course, what should be may not be what is, and a low-trust outlook may be the reality of the situation, but still consider the possibility that the situation is not a zero-sum game, and a win-win-win solution for total inclusion exists within the realm of feasibility. 

Especially in the realm of decision-making, I am convinced that we can strengthen any case by availing ourselves to a greater breadth of perspectives to make a more well-considered decision, only when we consider seriously the steelman of the minority's report.