With uncertainty we prefer conformity

The first estimate appears. Later estimates drift towards it. A diner copies the table’s order because the dish is unfamiliar. During a confusing outage, the junior specialist adopts the diagnosis already circulating and pockets the awkward alternative. Nobody has necessarily been bullied. Ambiguity did the recruiting. Uncertainty makes borrowed confidence feel like evidence.

This is socially sensible. Other people often know more, and coordinated action sometimes matters more than individually exquisite judgement. Being wrong together can even be safer than being right alone, particularly inside a hierarchy that keeps receipts.

The intellectual problem is independence. Ten people repeating one another are still one observation with excellent attendance. Consensus looks impressively broad after the original doubt has been laundered through several mouths.

Collect estimates privately while they still contain distinct information. Ask for one diagnosis before revealing the favoured theory. Let status arrive after the numbers. Then inspect the spread instead of immediately celebrating agreement.

Strong differences may reveal hidden assumptions, uneven evidence or genuinely different experiences. They may also reveal that one person misunderstood the question. Keep the first estimates beside the final decision. Six identical answers written after the chief speaks are not six pieces of evidence; the original slips of paper will show what the group knew beforehand.