@vgr
In SoP we’ve used Tension = tradeoff + conflict” to scaffold the definition of a protocol as an “engineered argument” into a general purpose tool/mental model.
Here is one fundamental tension I just clarified for myself: Rhetorical confidence vs epistemic doubt.
You need a certain level of rhetorical confidence to lead groups. You need a certain level of epistemic doubt to seek truth. The two are often in tension. Usually the leader lets one drive the other. Ie either lies about confidence in truths or fails to project enough confidence to engender trust and loyalty in followers.
If there is a convention of protocol literacy you can perhaps separate the two. The rationalist crowd tried with its “epistemic status: xxx” protocol for writing but that turned into a vacuous virtue signal.
My resolution: A single leader cannot resolve this tension. But a leader with a group of truly empowered followers, or better still, a group of peer leaders, who can express genuine dissent can do so. Then you can proceed with sufficient confidence to lead but also sufficient doubt to discover. The only systematic model for this I know of is Amazon’s “disagree but commit.” A leader simultaneously underwrites the confidence of another leader while bracketing the commitment with systematic doubt resolves the tension. The risk of being wrong gets distributed and socialized among all who disagree-and-commit, but leader gets to project sufficient confidence to work the case that they’re right. It’s an informal version of a courtroom argument actually. One of the two lawyers is going to be wrong, but the judge and jury proceduralize matters in a way that both can argue with sufficient rhetorical confidence without being in bad faith.