No method of conference will render minorities dispensable. In even the sincerest discussion we need participants who have the “show me” spirit. Always there is a residuum of problem or of evidence not yet mastered; always there is the one-sidedness of men; always there will be leaders who are in danger of dominating the thought of others; friendliness may produce an illusory sense of unanimity or of having solved a problem; and even while discussion is going on conditions in the world are changing and problems are shifting. Discussion groups in which minorities fade out should be carefully scrutinized. The promotion of discussion method has brought to the fore still another set of interesting and important questions. Are all questions whatsoever to be treated as open? However we answer this query, are we to set down as prejudiced every mind that tenaciously holds that condition _a_ is right, condition _b_ wrong, and change _c_ required? Does cooperative thinking imply that such an individual is to act as if he did not see what he is sure that he does see? And does it justify in others an everlasting “Perhaps so; perhaps not”? Is nothing ever to be taken as settled? Does willingness to consider the other man’s point of view estop us from action that may, from his point of view, constitute antagonism? The rational answers to these questions appear to be as follows: The only sense in which we can properly assume that all questions are open is that everyone should be ready to weigh specific evidence when it is offered and to go after evidence upon specific proof that it is needed. The most learned man, and the ethically insightful one, can be at home in a discussion group upon this condition; he cannot be at home if the notion of open-mindedness is so applied as to make specific grounds and sharp distinctions seem unimportant. The open mind is not the same as the empty mind, as has been said; it is far more likely to be the full mind. That is, readiness to listen, to weigh, and to revise, rather than non-committance, is the essential requirement. Truly cooperative thinking will not make pussy-cats of us all; there still will be prophets, and they will express convictions that have point. They will be helped, however, to be circumspect, even though, as seems to be inevitable, conduct will result that, from some points of view, constitutes antagonism.