Recent site activity

Navigation

Explanation

I am trying to build a website to demonstrate the advantages of the best format for organizing arguments. In order for your forum to have the best format it must have:
  1. reasons to agree and disagree on the same page, 
  2. reasons to agree or disagree with each of the reasons to agree or disagree... especially if the arguments are controversial or complex...
  3. the total number of reasons to agree vs disagree with the conclusion, taking into account some percentage of reasons to agree or disagree with reasons to agree...

We should also have algorithms that promote good conclusions, based on the relative number of reasons to agree or disagree.

However, I am currently just brainstorming with myself. Please help! Leave a comment. If your cool, I'll have you be a contributor... I've done a lot of work. You shouldn't have to start from scratch... Join me!

Picture explanation

Conclusions

 Features of Good ConclusionWays of promoting the features of good Conclusions
Good conclusions have lots of good arguments that support them and not very many good arguments that oppose them
  • We can identify good arguments by counting the number of reasons to agree and disagree with each conclusion, and counting the number of reasons to agree with each of the arguments (why, how, example).
Good conclusions take into account a comprehensive list of arguments that can be said to support or oppose a conclusion. 

  • Label the different types of things that can be said to support or oppose a conclusion (why, how, example). 
Given enough time, care, organization, and information, are more likely to come out of forums that reward good argument technique (see below)  Use ways to score arguments

Debates

Features of good Debate Ways to promote the features of Good Debate
 Arguments are well organized
  •  Put arguments and conclusions into an online crowd sourced relational database (why, how, example)
    • Arguments are complex
Unbiased debate format (why?)
  • Put reasons to agree and disagree on the same page (why, how?)
  • Allow biased people to participate, but try to brainstorm all the motives of people who agree or disagree with each conclusion (how, why?)
Well organized: arguments are clearly identified as either supporting or opposing a conclusion.
  • Put arguments that support and oppose a conclusion in separate columns, but on the same page.
Well organized: arguments are clearly identified by type, so apples can be compared to apples     
  •   Tag information as the following
    • results of scientific double blind study with more than x number of participants
    • result of scientific study
    • an if-than statement
    • text based causal relationship
    • a listing of books that clearly make a case to support or oppose a conclusion
    • a listing of an image (such as a political cartoon, or graph) that supports or opposes a conclusion (how, why?)
 Well organized: one topic at a time    
  •  Requiring users to use one sentence at a time, and investigating the validity of each statement independently, and as it relates to conclusions based on that statement. (how, why?)
 Well organized: one topic at a time 
  • Requiring users to use one sentence at a time, and investigating the validity of each statement independently, and as it relates to conclusions based on that statement. (how, why?)
 Well balanced, it brings a variety of voices to the table
  • Allow people from all over the internet to contribute (how, why?)
 Respectful: Rewards people who don't resort to calling names, or threatening other debate participants. 
  • Allow people to evaluate interactions similar to how e-bay promotes good behavior (how, why)
Have a variety of different ways of measuring the relative quality of a conclusion
  • Count the number of reasons to agree vs number of reasons to agree
  • Count the number of up-votes vs down-votes
  • Count the amount of money invested in the belief in an online game that allows you to invest money in a belief at its score, and sell it for a profit if the score goes up, after a transaction fee that covers overhead costs.
  • Count the score of specific aspects of a conclusion

Arguments

Features of Good ArgumentsWays of promoting the features of good Conclusions
The data in the "antecedent" can be said to support the conclusion.
  •  Have a linkage score for each argument, that indicates (on a scale from 0 to 1) how well the antecedent supports a conclusion (how, why).
 The data in the antecedent is true  
  •  Have an "antecedent" score that represents (on a scale from 0 to 1) if the information in the antecedent is can be verified as accurate (how, why).


  • Ways of promoting good debate
    • define high quality debate
      • reasons to agree and disagree on the same page
        • helps uses hear both sides of a debate
      • organized
        • arguments and conclusions into a relational database
        • Topic doesn't change with every new post
        • tag relationship between assumptions, arguments, and conclusions
          • allows you to update conclusion scores if assumption assumptions and argument scores are weakened
      • doesn't change topics with each new post
      • Don't waste people's times
        • organized
          • best arguments first
            • we should find ways to assign scores to arguments
              • we have to quantify the strength of an argument if you want a computer to put the best at the top of a list. you need to have good arguments at the top of a list, if you don't want to waste people's time
              • the only valid way to evaluate the strength of a conclusion, is to evaluate the strength of arguments that support it
          • best conclusions promoted
            • we need to promote good conclusions
              • we need to make good decisions
                • we have the power to destroy the human species
                  • if we make bad decisions we could have nuclear wars
                  • if we make bad decisions we could we could poisen our environment
      • defining good behavior
        • respecting others
        • clearly explaining your belief
        • encouraging good behavior
        • using algorithms that automatically count complicated rules of formal logic
      • using forms that encourage best practices used in dispute resolution
        • Putting reasons to agree and disagree on the same page forces opposing sides to come together to a common table
        • discovering hidden interests of disputing parties
      • the only way of defining a good argument is by determining if the arguments conclusion is supported by it's assumptions 
      • using forms that allow people to be very specific in their critique of an argument.
    • algorithms that count the relative number and quality of items that can be said to support or oppose a conclusion:
      • text based arguments
      • images
      • movies
      • books
    
Truth Promoting Algorithm

  1. We should crowd source a database of things that people believe and arguments they use
    1. A relational database is the best way of outlining our beliefs.
      1. Our conclusions and reasons to coming to them are all tied together in complex nonlinear ways similar to a relationship database.
        1. Our conclusions have many reasons to agree and disagree with them and each of these beliefs has many reasons to agree and disagree with them.
        2. Our conclusions can be linked in a relationship database to reasons to agree and disagree with them
          1. We could assign a relationship tag that defines one string of text as a reason to support another string of text. 
            1. We could give each string of text an ID
            2. We could then have separate ideas for reasons to agree or disagree
            3. For each string of text that is defined as an argument, we could enter the ID for its conclusion that it is meant to support.
            4. For each argument, linkage, and conclusion we could maintain an integer value that represents the score.
            5. We could use simple algorithms for producing argument and conclusion scores. Linkage scores would represent the strength of the belief that one argument supports a conclusion. 
        3. Data is often non conclusive
          1. Scientist are very smart but they keep changing their minds on what food we should eat. 
          2. Child psychologist are smart, but they often disagree about parenting techniques.  
We should enter our assumptions, arguments, and beliefs into a relational database, because the way assumptions and arguments are used to support beliefs, and the way that beliefs are used to support other beliefs can only be represented in a relational database. For example your beliefs about the need to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior are built on assumptions about human nature. Similarly an assumption about people's human nature will modify your determine if you usually view charity as a crutch that rewards bad behavior or a help up that enables better behavior. If your brain your brain is functioning properly, if you strengthen or weaken an assumption  it should strengthen or weaken all the beliefs that are built on that assumption. The only way to do this is intelligently is with a relational database that updates the strength of conclusions based on the dynamic strength of their assumptions. 

We could do this on create debate by giving a score to each belief, but also giving a belief a relationship score, if someone wants to try to use a belief as a reason to support or oppose another belief. 

This will give a place to argue for each belief, and also a place to argue weather a belief can accurately be used as a reason to support another belief. I think it would be important to potentially give a negative relationship score, if people believe that a belief actually opposes the other belief.

Potentially there would be a multiplier: so that only 1/2 of the points from a conclusion that is once removed, would be used to support the linked belief. 

For example if you believe that government are inefficient, that might get a score of 10. If 1/2 the people believe this conclusion is a reason to support the belief that we should cut government spending, that might cut the points down to 5. But because it is once removed it would only contribute 2.5 points. 

All of this effort for 2.5 points might seem like overkill. But if you think about this for most of your spare time for 12 years like I have, then you realize how drastically this would improve our politics, our beliefs, and the things we do. I don't know how to explain it better, but I will keep trying. 
      1. Putting 
    1. We should back up our beliefs with good logic.
    2. Putting beliefs into a relationship database  
    3. It will be less frustrating to explain ourselves, if we outline our arguments and beliefs into a relational database. When you make an argument, you have, our logical leaps make many assumptions. Outlining all of this is too much work to do in a verbal back and forth. It would take weeks to outline all your assumptions, to make sure you are on the same page. If we put all of this into a database, you could outline all your assumptions, and take these with you, so that you don't start at ground zero with each new debate. 
  1. Entering our beliefs and brainstorming reasons to agree and disagre with them with an online community will allow us to ensure that our belifs are backed up with good logic. If we entered our beliefs and arguments into databases, there are many features of relational databases  that could help us come to better conclusions. Some of the way a relational database could help us, would be to help us organize the large amount of data that is involved in making logical proof in the real world. define the relationship between different beliefs. T hen we should link arguments to the beliefs they are used to support.  If we entered our beliefs and arguments into databases, there are many features of relational databases  that could help us come to better conclusions
  2. Once we have a framework of how arguments are used to support or oppose different conclusions, we should  evaluate the validity of every important belief, by evaluate the validity of every important argument
  3. We should presents beliefs with the reasons used to agree and disagree with them on the same page.
  4. Computer scientist can solve our political and personal conflicts.
  5. Web designers can design forums that promote good ideas
  6. There are many things web designers can do to help people resolve their conflicts
  7. We are dumb to typically use chronological debates
  8. We should structure online debates so reasons to agree and disagree with a belief are on the same page.
  9. But when you click on any of the arguments, you it should move to the top of a page, and you should see the reasons to agree and disagree with it.
    1. Over time with arguments in this format, users of this forum would continually refine our understanding of what we should believe and why. 
    2. With arguments in this format users could continually refine the thinking  
  10. We should take arguments from websites, books, and tag text as arguments to that support or oppose different conclusions. 
    1. We need context on our data
    2. We need to see how one argument can affect another argument.
      1. People will argue for fairness in on issue, and then demand special treatment on other issues. If people want to believe in certain principles, then they should apply in similar situations. 
  11. Web designers should design forums that try to promote good argument technique.
  12. We should use generally agreed upon methods of conflict resolution to create algorithms to promote conclusions that are more valid. 
    1. Arbitrators use generally agreed upon methods that can easily be used as a guide for creating online debate forums. 
    2. Valid conclusions will have more good reasons to agree with them and fewer bad reasons to disagree with them. 
    3. In a data rich environment their are countless ways that we can experiment with defining good reasons.  To evaluate if a reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion is good or not may require intelligence that computers do not have. However good arguments have things in common. Good arguments will tend to have data that can be independently verified. Good arguments will not violate principles of logical debate. If we have arguments in a structured environment we can encourage good conflict resolution procedures. 
  13. We should develop a system that allows the online community to assign a unique identification number to each belief. 
    1. This would allow people to tag data, arguments, webpages, videos, poems, songs, and videos as reasons to agree or disagree with those arguments.
    2. People could vote on if a piece of data supports or opposes a conclusion.
    3.  algorithms can give them weight by giving higher scores to data that can be verified, arguments that use sound logic, beliefs that are based on valid sound, conclusions that follow valid logic, and other good idea promoting algorithms.
  14. We should design discussion forums that as they are used, result in tagging arguments as reasons to either agree or disagree with different conclusions.
    1. If we create discussion forums that automatically generate intelligent data we can create algorithms that use that data to promote better debate, formal logic, and conclusions that have been thoroughly investigated
  15. We should try to make algorithms that promote good ideas.
  16. We should build a debate forum that forces people to use good debate techniques
    1. Their are many common sense rules that participants of discussion forums should be told to follow
  17. We should build a debate forum for those who are interested in intelligent debate.
  18. We should put reasons to agree and disagree with a conclusion on the same page
    1. If you really are looking for truth, it would be helpful to have reasons to agree and disagree on the same page.
    2. There are some people that are honestly seeking for truth.
  19. We should reform online debate
  20. We should use algorithms to represent the collective strength with which certain beliefs have been represented through different webpages, books, and arguments over the years.
    1. It would be helpful to know how many people are being told things through each medium. For instance a book may make an argument, but a song may make the opposite argument, and may be heard from many more people. It would be interesting to see exactly how many people are getting different messages, and to see who is winning the war of ideas, how, and why.
  21. We should create discussion forums that separate reasons to agree and disagree into separate columns
  22. Everyone experiences conflict in their life. 
    1. Self help authors turn out thousands of pages, attempting to give reasons why women or men act the way the do.
  23. Conflict becomes frustrating in our personal lives when we do not understand other's reasons for doing things.  
  24. A lot of conflict will be solved if a web site is created that allows people to list their reasons for their actions. 
    1. Since peoples’ actions are based on their values and needs, the web site would also have sections dedicated to values and needs. 
    2. These lists will help people on this web site propose and debate solutions to the problems they face. 
    3. This paper explains how this web site will work and how its existence will promotes the use of successful dispute resolution tactics. 
    4. The list of reasons won't be too long, if we use good methods of promoting the best reasons to the top of the list
  25. We should create a debate forum that allows users to brainstorm solutions for every problem
    1. We could design this forum to be very helpful
      1. It would be very helpful if, when you click on a solution, you were presented with reasons to agree that it is a good solution in one column and a list of reasons it isn't a good solution in another column. 
    2. One of the techniques taught in Getting to Yes is the use of the brainstorming session. Getting to Yes says that we should, “Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.” 
    3. The internet offers vast potential for brainstorming possible solutions to our problems before we decide what to do. However, before now, no one has designed a well organized website for brainstorming solutions, or analyzing the meat of the problems we face: reasons to agree and disagree with proposed solutions. I believe I have an elegant webpage design that would vastly improve our online debate, and conflict resolution. 
    4. We could organize problems by topic
    5. If users click on a problem, a web page will open containing a list of possible solutions. 
    6. Once you click on a possible solution you will see that people have brainstormed and promoted the best reasons to agree and disagree with the solution, outlined the possible common, and opposing interest of those who agree and disagree with the solution. 
    7. The lists would not become to long, if we made an effort to put the best ideas at the top of the list.
  26. We should design a web-crawler that looks at language for certain patters that tries to identify proposed solutions to identified problems. 
    1. It is relatively easy to find a proposed solution to a problem from context 
  27. The internet offers us mountains of information, but a lot of it is wrong, and much of it is poorly organized. 
  28. I believe as we sort reasons to agree and disagree with ideas into separate columns we can develop an algorithm that promotes ideas that have lots of good reasons to agree with them. 
  29. Of course the algorithm would also demote ideas that had lots of good reasons to disagree with it. The problem is, once you have designed a website that allows people to brainstorm reasons to agree and disagree with different beliefs, and counts the number of reasons to both agree and disagree, how do you sort out the good reasons from the bad. The answer is easy and can be summarized by a rather dull quote from Bertrand Russell, who said. "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true." His obvious truthism points out a big problem with humanity. We all carry around beliefs in our head that have no grounds whatsoever for supposing they are true. 
    1. The only way we can make progress as a species is to brainstorm all the reasons to disagree and agree with different beliefs, and then brain storm all the reasons to agree and disagree with those reasons, until each logic tree has been evaluated, and the proposition with "no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true" identified that way.
  30. The problem is that we all carry around beliefs in our head based on reasons that never get analyzed in a systematic way. 
    1. But, you protest, I have arguments all the time. I live an examined life. 
    2. No you don't, and your an idiot if you think you do. 
    3. When you have an argument, you state your conclusion. 
    4. Someone gives a reason to disagree with your conclusion. 
    5. You give a reason to disagree with their reason. 
    6. After just the 1st exchange you are no longer talking about the original topic, and the longer you talk the worse it gets.
  31. The Internet offers great tools for organizing data. 
    1. People can vote to show whether they think certain solutions to a problem are valid. 
    2. A database could be used to create a hierarchy of goals, and possible solutions based on which submissions to the web site have the highest percentage of users consensus. 
    3. The database will place the most valid solutions at the top of the list. 
    4. This will make the site user-friendly because current and new users will have quick access to the ideas with the broadest support. 
  32. The way that I have just described the evaluation of ideas on the site will be in line with the method taught in Getting to Yes to separate the people from the problem. 
    1. When someone votes on whether they agree with something someone said, they will only vote on it because of it’s merits because they will not know the person who said it. 
    2. Having people list their interest with respect to a specific problem, will help confronting sides understand each other better. 
  33. This web site will be able to do many things that no mediator could do. 
    1. It can track the opinions of millions of people. 
    2. Unlike any other means of conflict resolution this web site will constantly update itself. 
    3. This web site has a dynamic ability to stay current. 
    4. What’s popular one day may not be popular another day. 
    5. It can keep people from voting twice, by having them log in. 
    6. Also your votes could be tracked. 
    7. This information could be used for a variety of purposes such as the political campaign. 
      1. For instance if you wanted to run for election you could instantly publish your specific opinion on hundreds of issues. 
      2. If a large number of voters had this information for one candidate, it could force other candidates to follow suit. 
      3. This could force politicians to be specific, cutting down on annoying one issue adds. 
  34. This web site will also be a sociologist dream come true. 
    1. No more calling people and asking questions. 
    2. Sociologist could join the effort, and help ask better questions. 
    3. Polling agencies could also get involved. 
      1. Sociologist could track trends as people age, or according to their location, sex, race, or any other information. 
  35. This could go a long way towards an on line democracy. 
  36. Mediators and lawyers could also use this web site to learn from how other problem are being solved. 
  37. This web will help people resolve conflict because it can also help people keep track of information. 
    1. Lots of web sites seek to express positions, and the reasons for believing them. However no web site has yet sought to address all truth. 
      1. On this web site all information will end up as a support for some opinion. 
      2. We are drowning in information, but the problem is not too much information, it is that we have now way of dealing with it. 
        1. You go to one person’s web site to learn what Rush Limbaugh thinks; you go to another web site to learn what Al Gore thinks. 
        2. You go to another web site to learn what Abraham Lincoln once said. 
        3. There has never been any attempt to summarize the knowledge of the world into one whole. 
  38. With enough users, conflicts will be solved very easily
    1. We all have similar conflicts. 
    2. We all face similar problems. 
    3. We all need similar things
      1. We all need food
      2. We all need waters
      3. We all need shelter
      4. We all need love
    4. With a million hands, and a system that promotes the survival of the fittest idea, that keeps getting better, conflicts will solve themselves magically. 
    5. While you sleep, thousands of people will be working on a solution. Highlights of the worlds best essays, newspaper articles, books, speeches, and debates will evolve into a united whole. This web site will become a great frame of reference. We can look at the best reasons for believing or not believing anything. 
  39. We learn in getting to yes the dangers of positional bargaining, however I believe that it could serve its purpose. 
    1. A convenient way of organizing this part of my site will be to state a specific position, 
      1. such as “Late term abortion should be illegal” and then letting people contribute list of reasons why they think that it should or should not be illegal. 
      2. Of course this part of the web site will follow the procedure developed in the other parts of the web. This part of the web could work much like a discussion board. 
      3. The reasons that gain the most acceptance as valid reasons will float to the top. 
      4. If you click on a specific reason for agreeing or disagreeing, you could see the percentage of people who agree with it. 
      5. You could look at a list of celebrities who agree with it. 
      6. You could see how its popularity has grown or shrunk with time. 
      7. Also you could see the top 10 reasons why people agree or disagree with this reason. 
      8. You could also go to each of these reasons and see why people agreed or disagreed with these reasons
      9. You would eventually get back to some grounding principle, precedent, law, or scientific principle. 
  40. This forum has all the advantages of other discussion forums, but it allows users to tag and organize their arguments. 
    1. What makes a lot of this web site possible is the ability to send people threw a pre-determined process. 
      1. For instance a person might have to click through 5 reasons in favor of a specific belief before he is allowed to disagree with it. 
    2. If the evaluation process thrives then this dynamic give and take will constantly lead to better positions. 
    3. Basically this is just an implementation of the scientific process. Those position solutions, interests, and goals that are described clearly, and are truly valid and logical will get the most acceptance. 
  41. It will be good that this web site cuts out the middle-man of most big disputes: the media. 
    1. The media, much like a lawyer, has the motivation for money, not just the best solution. 
      1. They don’t necessarily want the republicans and democrats to find the best solution: they want a juicy story. 
      2. They want to come up with the weeks list of "winners and losers" to fit into their "oversimplified" "dummied-down" story line. 
        1. The US News even weekly section entitled: Winners and Losers. 
      3. In this role the media plays the person who whispers in each contestants ear what the other person said about them, and tells the unwitting partisan to go duke it out in one more round. 
      4. Why do we rely on the media to tell us what the issues are and what we should think about them? 
    2. The media doesn't have the time to go into any issue in depth. 
    3. The main purpose of the media is to simplify, to summarize, declare a winner and looser, and get on with their main job of selling advertisers. 
    4. Right now we rely on the media to tell us what everyone wants and thinks. 
    5. Politicians have to pay the media millions of dollars to throw mud on a 20 second mud-slinging contest. 
    6. With this web site opposing sides could speak directly to each other. 
      1. William Buckley could dispute directly with Bill Clinton, and George Bush could talk directly with Sadamn Husagn. 
      2. Of course Abraham Lincoln will also debate with Fredrick Douglas, in the great debate section of the web site. 
  42. Another advantage of this web site is that forces each side of an issue to discuss the issue directly with each other. 
    1. The best arguments for each side will show up on the same page, just in separate columns. 
    2. The other side will be able to break in any time, by inserting a link to his opinion, without even disrupting the first opinion. 
    3. Having the other side’s best argument right there, and the ability for people to check the accuracy of what you say will keep you from exaggerating, blaming, using roadblocks, or lying. 
      1. If you say something stupid on this web site, you will get caught. Your words are right there. 
  43. One reason arguments get so bad is that rival sides never actually come face to face with each other.
    1. Sure they discuss the other person’s side of view, but they discuss it with people who agree with them. 
      1. The Arabs sit around talking about what the Jews want, and the Jews sit around talking about what the Arabs want. 
      2. But neither side is totally honest with each other, and their opinions never come out in the open so that they can be argued over. 
    2. They hide and become passive aggressive so that no one can address the hidden issues. 
      1. We know that passive aggression is one of the most difficult kinds to deal with. 
      2. That’s why we need a forum in which issues can be discussed over the Internet. 
      3. This web site will let people vent their problem, and see right in front of their faces how many people have read and agree with their idea. 
      4. They will also see the most popular reasons why people support or disagree with their idea. 
  44. Right now on the Internet apposing sides rarely come face to face with each other. 
    1. They will never list their opinion and then give a link to their opponents’ best arguments. 
    2. You may find an Internet address posted by people of different sides of an issue. 
    3. However, they probably don’t know of each other’s existence. 
    4. There is now way for disputes to be resolved by people who are not talking. 
    5. If you read what they say, you will find that they are not talking with each other. 
    6. These people are on soapboxes talking to anyone who will listen, and they about five miles apart. 
  45. The current methods of disusing your beliefs are lacking.
    1. Live discussions are low quality. 
      1. You want a live discussion. You go to a chat room about your issue. However you find two high school kids talking about Brittany Spears. You try talking to them. However ever time you have a discussion with a new person, you have to start at ground zero, as though now one had ever argued that issue before. This problem with chat rooms makes you start over, with every discussion you have. Any advances you make in understanding will be lost when you turn of the chat window. What will happen to science if scientist followed this method? What if every scientific record was written in a format that could not be re-traced or examined for those of other generations? What if scientist wrote everything in sand? People have been arguing about things for thousands of years. Why do we always have to start at ground zero, when we meet someone and want to discuss issues. As we start thinking about this, we can see why a web site like the history channel may want to adopt it. What does Abraham Lincoln have to say about issues we are facing today? 
    2. It is wierd and self centered to pretend we are the first ones who have ever had a belief, and to just start writting as without even referencing people who have made similar arguments in the past.
      1. It is as though we are so self-righteous as to believe that no one else besides us has ever argued about certain ideas, and we don’t care what they said. 
    3. It is very presumptuous of us to think that we can find truth, independent of what the rest of the world thinks. 
  46. Our discussion forum should have a section of this page designated to news events. 
    1. People could see how news events fit into the framework of why people do things. You could see where a news event is used by people for evidence of certain courses of action. 
    2. News in and of itself doesn't do any good.
    3. The fact that people are dying in Africa because of aids does nothing unless its used as a specific reason for a specific course of action. 
    4. Right now the news media acts like a lawyer, telling each side what the other side said, often getting things wrong, creating distrust and confusion on both sides of the isle. 
  47. There are a lot of good comparisons for this website
    1. This web site is like a continuous poll that runs 24 hours a day
    2. It is much like a discussion board, but more dynamic. 
    3. This web site is a hybrid of many things. 
      1. It is much like a stock exchange in that it tracks the rise and fall of the popularity of brainstormed solutions, much like the stock exchange tracks the popularity of companies. 
        1. To continue the theme of a stock exchange each position could get an Idea Executive Officer, who is in charge of maintaining the web site. His job will be to drum up support for his cause. Perhaps George Bush will become an IEO for the belief that we should lower taxes. I can see them on CNN talking about their position much like CEO’s talk about their stock, “I think we are going to be doing much better, in the 3rd quarter of this year, after people pay their taxes.” Perhaps the IEO could get paid revenues from advertising on the site for his position. He could make editorial comments or make the categories for additions to his web site to go into. 
      2. Like nature my “idea stock exchange” promotes the survival of the fittest. 
  48. There are many things that could be done to make this web site better. 
    1. We should have a place on the website for new arguments, data, or solutions
      1. Their is built in resistance to new ideas
        1. Once a belief becomes partially accepted, people may overestimate its strength
          1. Incumbent office holders often say in power, because they already have name recognition, and the physiological advantage of already being in a position of authority.
          2. We see that beliefs often become accepted in society, and are quickly abandoned. Intellectuals often advocated eugenics, until they quickly abandoned it. 
          3. In the business world a major concern is a monopoly. Perhaps a business can only succeed because it succeeds in the past, even though a different company may be better for consumer. It is foreseeable too that on our web site that some ideas will become popular, and stay popular. Much like a business with a monopoly, it may bee seen that it gets preferred treatment, because it is at the top. This could be overcome by having a section, much like the business world that talks about good new ideas. 
    2. We should have a spot on our debate forum for current ongoing conflicts in which violence is taking place. 
      1. There are many parties that are in conflict such as 
        1. Israelis and the Palestinians. 
        2. We could do this without making it a case of group a vs. group b. 
          1. Assuming that these portions of my web site we have already tried to list all of the interest of every individual party we can go forward with addressing the conflicts between specific groups by bringing extra focus to common values and interests. 
          2. This section of the web site can address conflicts when certain groups have declared other groups as their enemy. 
          3. The purpose of this side of the group is to lesson the tension between these groups and to increase understanding. 
          4. In these groups we could tighten the rules on name calling.
          5. Extreme care will need to be used in making this portion of the web site most productive. Some groups in side this portion of the site have killed the members of the other side of their conflict. Emotions will run very high. But even if this was nothing more than a discussion board in which appeasing sides could vent their frustration, some good may be done. However I believe we can do much better than that. Again we must follow the principles of successful dispute resolution. 
          6. There are many advantages of having a spot for violent debates. This will help focus interest on the issues that need the most attention. Common  goals, and values between groups that are fighting can be discussed. 
  49. Interests
    1. We should have a place where people are able to brainstorm interest of those who agree and disagree with a proposed solution
      1. There are many types of interests. In order to organize debate we should distinguish between them. In computer science speak this means to "tag" them. In database management speak, this would be a simple assignment, however tagging allows people to vote of which type of interest it is.
        1. common interest
        2. opposing interest
        3. Physiological needs
          1. breathing, food, water, sleep, homeostasis, excretion
        4. Safety: 
          1. Security of: Body, employment, resources, morality, the family, health, property
        5. Love/belonging: 
          1. Friendship, family, sexual intimacy
        6. Esteem: 
          1. Self-esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, respect by others
        7. Self actualization: 
          1. Morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving lack of projudice, acceptance of facts
      2. Getting to yes teaches us that we all have mutually overlapping common interest, and it is best if both sides of a dispute physiologically work together against a problem instead of working against each other. 
      3. However we must be realistic and acknowledge the guns that different groups have pointed at each other. 
      4. This web site can do some things to help these groups too. 
      5. On the front page of this portion of the sight we will have a list of common interest, goals, and values. Perhaps before you can vote or submit conflicting goals, interest, or values, you will have to vote on weather you agree or disagree with the top ten positions of your advisory. 
      6. Having people list their interest with respect to a specific problem, will meet the criteria for successful negotiation to focus on interest, not positions. It will also help confronting sides understand each other better. 
  50. We should reward people who use good debate technique. 
    1. People often act poorly on the internet
      1. A possible problem comes with the freedom of anonymity. 
      2. People may feel too free to express malicious ideas. 
    2. In addition traditional problem will arise between people as the work their way to the real issue, and deal with roadblocks in the dynamic exchange of ideas. 
    3. Creating a way that the people on the site can regulate themselves could solve this problem. 
  51. One way to create a web site that allows freedom, but is self-regulating will be direct people in the way of evaluating solutions, interest, and goals. We could ask people if the way the solution, interest, or goal was worded might cause people problem. Perhaps someone worded their position in a partisan way, or maybe used hostile emotions. Each of these separate issues could be a plus or minus, that sends your idea up or down the slide. Questions could be asked such as, “Is this action consistent with principles? Which ones?” If people know before hand the criteria with which their ideas will be judged, they will frame their comments in the best way. 
  52. My debate forum will do more than just establish the will of the majority. 
    1. One thing this web site will be very good at is establishing the will of the majority. 
    2. Another possible problem comes from the assumption that the majority of people will always choose the best option.
    3. The majority of people are not very well educated about very complex problem. 
    4. We live in a republic not a democracy. I believe the purpose of a republic is to vote for the best individual to represent us. 

  53. Our discussion forum should allow people to alter which inputs they think are important, to tweak the score that the algorithm gives.
    1. Perhaps we could have a portion of the web site that high lightens the issues that have the biggest discrepancies between experts and the masses. 
    2. One option for deciding who experts are will be to let professors at colleges be experts in their field. 
    3. We could ask colleges to keep us updated with a list of professors, and their e-mails.
    4.  We could inter this into the data base, and the computer will do the rest, giving them the ability to have more status in their field. 
    5. There can be problems with majority rule
      1. The majority of southerners saw no problem with slavery. 
      2. The majority of Germans were willing to go to war in WWI and WWII. 
      3. The majority of teen-age boys like Brittany Spears. 
      4. Scientist don't turn their decisions over to popular vote, they follow the scientific method.
      5.  Will a wise community plan result if the will of the majority were responsible for designing the sewer system, and waste treatment plant? 
      6. Will you want to live in a country where national emergencies in delicate diplomatic situations, such as the plain crash with China, where handled by the will of the majority? 
  54. We should have a specific way of brainstorming "objective criteria that could be used to resolve this conflict.” 
    1. It seems probably that a variety of solutions will become most popular for different problem. 
    2. Perhaps some of these suggested objective criteria will be to let the UN decide, or a panel of independent experts. 
    3. Should a coin be tossed? 
    4. Should a governmental task force be formed to study the issue? 
    5. Should it be a matter for lawyers, the president, congress, UN, or other institution resolve? 
    6. This is yet another way that the principles of Getting to Yes could be implemented. 
    7. In getting to Yes we learn that whenever you have a debate, you are really having two debates. One about the issue, the other about how the issue will be resolved. 
    8. Building this site will focus a lot of attention on the best way for coming to a solution. As people are herded threw the process of brainstorming on this site, it will become a natural response to a problem, along with the other techniques that we have discussed. 
  55. There are lots of people out there that will be interested in making this web site. 
    1. Many companies now sponsor discussion boards. 
    2. Yahoo, MSN, NBC, CBS and other company’s sponsor chat room. 
  56. The principles of dispute resolution can be applied anywhere people have conflict as long as they are willing to meet at a common table and discuss their differences. 
  57. The Internet is the largest table that mankind has ever met, and thus offers great opportunities for conflict resolution. 
  58. Communication on the Internet will only bring people together to the degree that they follow the principles of successful dispute resolution. 
  59. I believe that an arena can be built on the Internet that will naturally promote successful dispute resolution.
  60. Moderators
    1. We should have a head moderator for each belief. It would be nice if they had training in conflict resolution. 
      1. In typical conflict resolution you need a moderator to do many things. 
        1. In typical dispute resolution the moderator will summarize needs, issues, or values. 
        2. In typical dispute resolution the moderator can also problem solve if necessary. 
      2. There are many ways of finding good moderators for each issue.
        1. We could pick moderators from those who's arguments end up as top reasons to agree or disagree with the conclusion. 
      3. In real dispute resolution the moderator may be responsible for actually picking a path forward. However, this website won't have any real power, except for the power to organize arguments, and try to make the path forward clear. 
    2. We should not need our moderators to work very hard
      1. If users have good systems for identifying logical fallacies, down-voting bad arguments, tagging arguments as name calling, these features will allow the community to govern themselves. 
      2. We may need moderators to help, until the programming is complete for all these advanced functions
    3. We can replace dispute resolution moderators with a well designed internet forum
      1. Dispute resolution moderators are taught to treat others with respect. We can design a web forum that allows users to reward those that treat others with respect, and punish those that don't.
      2. Dispute resolution moderators are taught to reflect what people are saying. Reflecting what someone is saying is a way of proving that you are listening and understand what the other person is saying. We can reward users who are able to put what the other side is saying, in their own words, in such a way that is accepted by the other side as a valid interpretation of what they believe. 
      3. Dispute resolution moderators are taught to listen well to each participant. We can design a web forum that rewards people who do a good job of listening (reading) other people's posts completely, and assure they understand, before they respond.
        1. We could design a web forum that allows people to evaluate every conversation participant on how well they listened. For each given conversation, their is no reason to believe the evaluator is more responsible than the person being evaluated, but over time, if everyone thinks you just read the first part of a post, before you start name calling, then perhaps you don't need to listen better. Often when you debate an issue, you can tell that people aren't really listening. 
        2. This doesn't mean that you have to read every boring stupid thing someone writes, just the boring stupid things that you feel like responding
  61. Potential solutions
    1. We should have a way of brainstorming and evaluating best solutions to important problems
      1. There are concrete ways to determine if a solution is a good one
        1. Good solutions can be voted on if they meet important needs or interest. 
          1. A good solution meets as many important needs as possible. We have independently agreed apon methods of determining if needs are important. 
          2. Some needs are more important than others
        2. We can design a forum that uses common sense ways of evaluating if a proposed solution is a good one. 
          1. In order to evaluate a potential solution you have to brainstorm a list of potential problems with the solution. For each of these problems you have to identify how likely they are to happen. One way of promoting accuracy is to allow people to invest money (fake or real) in predicting which outcome will happen. You follow the money, and listen to people more who get their bets right.
    2. We should reward users that propose solutions that end up getting the highest degree of acceptance. 
  62. There are a lot of good ways to evaluate an argument
    1. When people submit an argument as a reason to agree or disagree with a conclusion, we should figure out if the statement is true or not, and if it is true, if it really supports the proposed conclusion. 
      1. A statement can stand along, and it can also be used to support another statement. 
        1. For instance, you can say that Obama has not closed the Guantanamo Bay Foreign Combatant facility. This argument could be be used to say that Obama lied, is a bad president, or is a good president. There is probably little argument about the first statement. A few links, and a few videos can prove that Obama said those word. The problem is how does this statement get used to support other statements. Perhaps a good president needs to change their mind. Or a good president needs to keep their commitments. Unfortunately  a lot of people's estimation of which argument is valid, will depend on what party they belong to, and what party is in office. One purpose of this website should be to establish standards for evaluating statements, that are not subject to personal party identification, and group identification. 
    2. Many people believe conclusions that are not supported by sound logic. 
      1. These people are arguing two different things (this would reflect badly on their person who made the last comment.) 


We need politicians that respond to decisions with careful, cold, prudent calculations of national interest not narcissistic ninnies puffed up with a conviction of their own moral superiority, consumed by a missionary zeal to make everything right in the world, and capable of acting only on transient emotions stirred by the last dramatic TV footage. Listing reasons to agree and disagree will force them to make decisions based on logic. 


Subpage Listing


Subpages (34): View All
Comments