In view of some items of recent history, some readers may ask, “Do you mean discussion method, so called? If so, then, ...?” If by discussion method we are to understand a particular _a, b, c_, procedure, this is not what I mean, for I am not convinced that cooperative thinking is restricted to any one, or any other number, of particular procedures. Even in the few examples to which allusion has been made there is great variety. On the other hand, there is distinct advantage in the formulation of specific procedures that have been successful--formulations that, most of all, enable persons assembling together for the first time to find their own mind and discern their problems most promptly.[9] The leading promoters of discussion method, whatever the particular technic that they favor, appear to have in mind the same goal, on the whole, as that which I have defined. If the goal, and the roads that lead towards it, have not always been clearly seen, I am willing to think that this is incidental to the newness and the incompleteness of some phases of our experience in this field. Consequently, if I now point out some misconceptions and pitfalls, it is not because I wish to hold back the movement that goes under the name of discussion method, but because I believe that it represents in important measure a principle of rationality itself. First, then, genuinely cooperative thinking must be something more than a friendly adjustment of conflicting present interests, or pooling of present desires. Let us gladly grant that arbitration, pooling, and adjustment by compromise have their place. When opponents--say, employers and employes--“get their feet under the same table,” something is likely to be gained, even if conflicting desires are adjusted without inquiry into the validity of any of them. But in the end we must distinguish between the two questions, How can I get what I want with the least friction? and, What wants, of myself and of others, are reasonable?