Without consensus there would be no human progress. We need to share assumptions in order to collectively agree on what to build. This metaphysical cooperation enables us to coordinate markets and maintain order. A species can’t progress without it. When we share models of reality with each other we benefit from comparative advantage, which enables success we could not achieve alone.
Yet, consensus thinking run amok destroys value. The yang to consensus’ yin is non-consensus or contrarian thinking. It is also a discipline that requires extreme discipline. Because consensus underpins social life, as we get to understand it better (how humans seem to behave) we can better evaluate the costs of breaking away from it … for ourselves.
What might be the risk / reward of deviating from consensus while remaining tethered to it?
Acting differently than the herd can yield outsized returns when the consensus is wrong. It’s a portfolio decision. You can’t act 100% non-consensus-ly unless you are Tom Hanks in Castaway.
Use consensus to calibrate a normal range of outcomes and then decide whether the potential edges justify tolerating extra variance. Get more comfortable with your risk envelope by:
Studying established practices
Understanding the incentives at play (read: the business models)
Gather empirical evidence
Run experiments isolating a novel variable.
Limit your downside loss
Maintain your relationship with the consensus
Find reliable non-consensus friends
Be explicit about assumptions
Steelman your contrarian idea
Double-down as you gain conviction or abandon
We can learn even especially when an idea flops. It informs the next hypothesis.
Update 17 Jan 2026: a friend sent me this essay on X about how consensus impacts women more than men. What do you think?
Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Pulp Conversations to listen to this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
