Dominant voices come in three forms: dictators, majorities and cores. In each case, they feel entitled to power over others by virtue of their positions of authority, their numbers or the density of their connections. In each case, they define success as self-serving gains. They live to dominate and fear any loss of domination. The opposite of dominant voices are voices in dialogue. These are voices explicitly after mutual gains.
When it comes to the complexity of what we call social, political and economic problems, dominant voices can be wrong. They can believe and do exactly what sustains or worsens these problems, no matter how much lip service they deliver to making thighs better.
What makes them wrong are a few dynamics. They work from certainty rather than curiosity. They define the problem as other people rather than their own process. They don't see the relationship between their actions and the problem.
Communities where we see significant increases in social, economic and political gains always come about because voices in dialogue take collective action without being distracted by the dominant voices. Instead leaders and facilitators acknowledge the dominant wrong opinions and invite the willing into dialogues for mutual gain that focus on curiosity, process and shared accountability.