The Paradox of Unanimity

Imagine a scenario in a university where someone breaks into the main office. There are several witnesses to this incident. They're questioned one by one and asked to identify the culprit from a list of suspects - and they all point at the same person. Therefore, the culprit has been found, and the case is resolved, right? But that isn't always the case. The unanimous agreement shouldn't make you sure of the answer, it should do the opposite.

Before we talk about that though, it is important to understand why we strive for unanimity and consensus. A lot of things in society are modeled around these principles. If you want to watch a movie or go to a restaurant, you're likely to look up the reviews of strangers online and base your decision on their opinions. Elections are another example where the stance of the majority is essential in making a decision. And certainly, the opinions of a large group of people set a threshold for what is expected and executed. Although, it starts to get trickier as something becomes closer and closer to getting 100% approval.

If a candidate in an election gets 100% of the votes, you'd probably think the voters were coerced or paid off or that the only voters were the winner's family. If every single review for a restaurant was positive, you'd assume that all the reviews were posted by the owners of the restaurant.

The unanimous agreement usually seems fishy, because it points to an error in the system. A flaw in the execution of questioning, malpractice concerning the subjects, or poor analysis of results might lead to this scenario.

---