Traditionally, “Common Sense” was viewed as an innate, implicit knowledge that guides everyday behavior—an unspoken set of assumptions paralleling the natural human knowledge base. However, a recent article by Magubane (2024) titled “What is common sense?” from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania adds a particular plotline. Analyzing the article’s notion of common sense as universally homogeneous is a good thought experiment.  The article suggests that common sense varies among individuals and groups. In the article, Magubane (2024) emphasizes the “pq common sense” metric, which is particularly important when understanding collective cognition, which is increasingly significant in social psychology and leadership studies. The study’s primary innovation lies in its effort to translate a nebulous concept into a measurable construct. The study collected data on 4,407 diverse claims from 2,046 participants. The researchers established an empirical foundation to investigate how shared beliefs develop and how these beliefs can differ based on group size and individual social perceptiveness.

At the core of the study is the development of the “pq common sense” metric, which quantifies the proportion of claims (q) that a certain percentage (p) of individuals share. This metric is based on network analysis, a methodology increasingly used to understand complex social phenomena. For instance, even if a particular claim is endorsed by a significant fraction of the population (high “p”), the overall percentage of such claims (high “q”) might be relatively low when viewed against the full spectrum of beliefs. This suggests that, as traditionally conceived, common sense may be more fragmented and individualized than previously assumed. By conceptualizing individuals and their beliefs as nodes in a network, social psychology seems to have transformed an abstract social theory into a quantifiable structure that can be empirically examined. From my observation, this approach appears to depart from traditional survey methods that tally agreement levels on given statements. Instead, the network analysis framework enables researchers to probe the “depth and breadth” of consensus by identifying clusters with high levels of agreement. I conjecture that such a metric is innovative, as it allows for mapping intricate relationships among beliefs, thereby shedding light on how consensus—or the lack thereof—varies across different populations.

The study’s empirical foundation rests on a substantial dataset comprising 4,407 claims covering many topics—from practical, everyday truths to more philosophical statements. The span of these claims, categorized along dimensions such as literal versus figurative language and fact versus opinion, ensures that the evaluation of common sense is not confined to any single domain. This inclusivity enhances the strength of the findings, as it accounts for the multifaceted nature of common sense. Interestingly, the article observes that traditional demographic factors (e.g., age, education, political affiliations) did not significantly sway an individual’s level of “commonsensicality.” Instead, the study revealed that social perceptiveness—a person’s ability to comprehend the thoughts and emotions of others—correlated positively with higher levels of common sense. This finding aligns with recent scholarship on emotional and social intelligence, both crucial for understanding interpersonal dynamics and effective leadership. One of the significant strengths of the study is its methodological innovation. Using a network-based approach, the researchers offer a new perspective from which common sense can be assessed. This metric could be valuable in other fields requiring quantifying tacit knowledge and shared cultural assumptions. Also, using a large and diverse set of claims contributes to the generalizability of the findings. However, several limitations must also be acknowledged. First, reliance on self-reported ratings introduces the potential for subjective bias. While the network analysis provides a rigorous quantitative approach, the initial input—participants’ evaluations of what defines common sense—remains inherently subjective. Second, although the sample size of 2,046 participants is commendable, the article suggests a need for further cross-cultural validation. Since common sense is deeply embedded in cultural contexts, expanding the research to include a global sample would likely enhance the findings and their relevance to diverse populations. Additionally, the static nature of the study’s design does not account for how common sense may evolve within dynamic social systems. Longitudinal studies could yield further insights into whether and how collective common sense shifts in response to social, technological, or political changes.

The study’s conceptualization of common sense holds significant interdisciplinary implications. Traditionally, common sense has been linked to intuitive judgment—an almost unspoken social contract that influences everyday behavior. This research intersects with cognitive psychology, sociology, and even artificial intelligence by breaking common sense into measurable components. In cognitive psychology, for example, grasping how individuals process and internalize shared beliefs can shed light on social learning mechanisms and collective intelligence. Notably, the framework’s reliance on network analysis corresponds with modern research in social network theory, where understanding the structure of relationships is crucial for decoding collective behavior. One of the most compelling aspects of Magubane’s (2024) article is its implicit parallel to leadership development. Effective leadership, especially in increasingly complex and diverse organizations, requires more than technical expertise or strategic acumen. It necessitates a nuanced understanding of the collective beliefs and values that underpin group dynamics—essentially, the ability to navigate what is often considered “Common Sense.” Let me explore several of my theoretical observations and their parallel to society.

First, the study examines individual versus collective perspectives and further emphasizes that common sense is not a uniform construct but a particular phenomenon increasingly fragmented in larger groups. This reflects the challenges faced by leaders as they move up organizational hierarchies. Early-stage leaders may find that their personal insights and “common sense” closely align with those of a small team. However, as the scope of leadership broadens, the diversity of perspectives increases, and what once seemed like common sense may no longer be universally accepted. This divergence requires leaders to cultivate a keen sense of social perceptiveness. Understanding that each person’s perception of common sense is unique, effective leaders must learn to bridge disparate viewpoints and promote a shared vision. This is reminiscent of the “distributed leadership” concept, where leadership responsibilities are shared, and collective intelligence is utilized to drive organizational success.

Second, the competency of social perceptiveness in leadership was highlighted. The finding that social perceptiveness correlates with greater commonsensicality establishes a direct link to leadership competencies. Leaders with heightened social awareness are better equipped to understand the implicit assumptions held by their teams, enabling them to make decisions that resonate on a collective level. In today’s rapidly changing environments, gauging and integrating an organization’s “common sense” is crucial for adaptive decision-making and conflict resolution. Recent studies have underscored the significance of emotional and social intelligence in leadership. For instance, research published in the Leadership Quarterly has demonstrated that leaders with high social perceptiveness are more effective in building trust and fostering team cohesion. Therefore, the framework for quantifying common sense could be an innovative tool for leadership development programs, offering insights into how shared beliefs can be leveraged to enhance team performance.

Third is the perspective on navigating group dynamics and building consensus after a relational societal association. The study reveals that larger groups tend to show fewer universally shared beliefs, which has significant implications for leadership. As organizations grow, the challenge of aligning diverse perspectives becomes more pronounced. Leaders must, therefore, engage in consensus-building efforts that recognize and bridge the gaps between individual perceptions of common sense. This requires clear communication and the creation of environments that foster open dialogue and the sharing of diverse viewpoints. The “pq common sense” metric provides a quantifiable way to assess these dynamics, potentially guiding leadership strategies to enhance group alignment. Identifying clusters of shared beliefs within an organization, leaders can target interventions to strengthen areas of consensus and address pockets of divergence. In this sense, the framework does not merely serve academic interests; it has practical applications in guiding leadership progress and organizational development.

Finally, let us look at how AI is integrated into common sense and language models on the path to general human intelligence. The implications of teaching common sense to AI models are significant. The interest of researchers in applying their findings to artificial intelligence highlights the broader relevance of the study. As AI systems are increasingly deployed in decision-making roles, it becomes essential to endow them with an understanding of human common sense. For leaders in technology-driven industries, integrating human-like common sense into AI could facilitate more intuitive and ethical decision-making processes. This aligns with recent interdisciplinary work at the intersection of AI ethics, leadership, and organizational behavior, suggesting that quantifying common sense could one day inform human and machine leadership paradigms.

Magubane’s (2024) article provides a compelling discussion of common sense concepts by introducing an innovative framework that quantifies individual and collective beliefs. The study’s methodological contributions—particularly developing the “pq common sense” metric—offer a new approach to understanding how consensus is formed and maintained within groups. Despite inherent limitations, such as potential subjective bias and the need for broader cross-cultural validation, the framework offers a strong foundation for future social cognition and network analysis research. Beyond its immediate contributions to the common sense literature, the study has significant implications for leadership progression. By demonstrating that common sense is not universally shared but rather a fluid construct influenced by individual social perceptiveness, the research provides valuable insights into the challenges of aligning diverse viewpoints within larger organizations. Effective leaders must cultivate social perceptiveness and engage in strategic consensus-building to navigate the complexities of modern organizational life. In this way, the study parallels the nuanced journey of leadership progression—from aligning individual perspectives in small teams to integrating diverse beliefs in large, multifaceted organizations. Future research should aim to expand the empirical scope of the study by incorporating longitudinal designs and cross-cultural comparisons, as well as exploring the practical applications of the framework in leadership development and AI system design. Ultimately, by demystifying common sense, the work advances academic discourse and offers actionable insights for leaders seeking to harness the power of shared beliefs to drive organizational success.

Citation

Magubane, N. (2024). What is common sense? Knowledge at Wharton. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.