Odd, but correct. It's a heterological issue, where maximal (not total) diversity is achieved by getting everyone to agree on the value of respecting each other's choices as long as no harm is done.
>The best way to avoid conflict and encourage diversity is to force everyone to voluntarily think alike.
I have no idea if this was a joke, given you used the words "force" and "voluntarily" in the same sentence, as well as "diversity" and "think alike". In the event that you are serious, I completely disagree. Or rather, if by "best" you mean "ideal", I agree. If you mean "best" as in "most likely to succeed", the method rarely works.
>BTW, lest I be misunderstood, neither I nor the books are saying there isn't anything like an obligation, and that you should not have shoulds. Of course everyone will have them. The key is to realize that your set of shoulds will be incompatible with others. You could have a long, multi-day conversation with the other to align your sets, but if you just change the style (and tone) of the conversation, you won't need to.
You really don't need people to think alike to avoid conflict and encourage diversity.
