Robert’s Rules of Order

When I was running a reading group on The Federalist Papers, we ran into some problems. This led me to rethink how we might organize discussions—a format that would let people with different viewpoints sit down together and tackle controversial topics in an orderly fashion.

I spent some time studying Robert’s Rules of Order, and my intuition told me this was an excellent toolkit with remarkably broad applicability. People kept insisting that Robert’s Rules only works in parliamentary settings, for discussing actionable business. But I think they’re wrong. What parliamentary procedure really tackles is this: “How do we reach consensus and maintain order through equal self-governance, without any central authority?” The way I see it, this applies to almost any discussion with three or more people. Those who claim it only works in very limited contexts are like people who tell me “MBTI only belongs in HR”—they’ve missed the deeper principles at work.

In essence, Robert’s Rules is an art of defining the boundaries between the collective and the individual.

Reflections on Twelve Angry Men

Once I understood the basic principles, the question became: how do you actually put this into practice? I have to say, there’s precious little to go on. Partly this reflects the failures of our education—no one ever teaches you how to organize and work with others as equals in a self-governing way. But it’s also the cultural conditioning of everyday life: rigid hierarchies everywhere you turn. People are conditioned to be led, to wait passively for instructions, or else to become lone wolves who’d rather go it alone than waste breath on collaboration.

So yesterday I pulled out Twelve Angry Men and rewatched it through the lens of what I’d just learned about Robert’s Rules. A few new things struck me:

First, everywhere—East or West, doesn’t matter—you’ve got rule-breakers, people full of prejudice and emotion. It’s neither realistic nor necessary to expect that a few rules will keep everyone in line.

Second, some rules are worth adopting—like when it’s someone else’s turn to speak, everyone else keeps quiet; stick to the issues, no personal attacks. Even these seemingly obvious rules weren’t perfectly followed in the film, but it didn’t matter. What matters most, the core principle, is that the minority gets to speak. As long as minority voices can be heard, reason has a fighting chance.

Third, groups can be wise. Look, even Henry Fonda’s character started with nothing more than reasonable doubt—no hard evidence. But as the debate unfolded, others chimed in with their own knowledge: how switchblades work, what eyeglass marks look like. Gradually a fuller picture emerged. Sure, you could call it mob mentality—at the beginning only the protagonist voted not guilty while everyone else piled on. But once real communication started, the group ended up seeing a more complete picture than any single person had at the outset. That’s what collective wisdom looks like to me.

Appendix: Eight Principles from Robert’s Rules

Finally, here are my own distilled “Eight Principles from Robert’s Rules”—a selection I’ve reorganized and plan to test-drive in the reading group.

I. During free discussion:

  • Decorum in debate: No personal attacks, moral judgments, or questioning of motives. Address the measure, not the member.
  • No interruption: Members cannot interrupt a speaker who has been recognized, except for urgent parliamentary matters

II. When debate is needed:

  • Germaneness: Stay on topic, remarks must be relevant to the question
  • Alternating debate: The chair should alternate between speakers for and against the motion
  • Clear position: State your stance first (support or oppose), then provide reasons

III. When debate gets heated:

  • Limits of debate: Standard rule is two speeches per member, ten minutes each (modifiable by motion)
  • Address the chair: All remarks addressed to the chair, no cross-debate between members

IV. When voting is needed:

  • Majority vote: A motion passes when more vote in favor than against; ties fail. Motions that suspend rules or limit member rights require a two-thirds vote

Note: Why do I want to run a reading group anyway? Isn’t it better to just research and think deeply on your own?

For one thing, it helps with loneliness. Loneliness is a chronic disease. At one point I felt myself sliding toward depression, and the reading group genuinely helped pull me back. Plus, good conversation—really good conversation—is its own kind of joy. Probably only people who’ve experienced it know what I mean.

For another, there’s my longstanding obsession with collective wisdom. I recently came across an intriguing question on Weibo: Why is The Crowd(Le Bon) a bestseller while * The Wisdom of Crowds* is practically unknown? You can’t just chalk it up to “everyone thinks everyone else is a mob”—because often enough, reality bears that out. But whether you get mob behavior or collective wisdom depends entirely on how the group is structured. Same carbon atoms can form graphite or diamond; it all comes down to molecular arrangement.

Individual rationality and wisdom have their limits. But if we pursue collective wisdom seriously, we might reach places individual minds simply cannot go.