ExtraSlow
04-06-2015, 07:36 PM
We've all seen debates on contentious issues spiral out of control here on our beloved beyond.ca, on facebook, and even in our homes and workplaces. What makes groups of seemingly reasonable people devolve into slavering morons during debates? I don't know the answer to that, but we may be able to avoid more of these debates in the future if we can define a useful process for reaching a meaningful verdict on these contentious issues.
Dilbert creator Scott Adams is designing and testing just such a process. He has termed this "the Rationality Engine". In his own words, here is the outline:
Originally posted by Scott Adams
LINK to Scott Adams' Blog post (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/115299602036/rationality-engine-for-assisted-dying-prep-phase)
The Rationality Engine attempts to turn the uninformed and irrational opinions of the public into a coherent verdict via a system that has the following features:
Rationality Engine
1. Public debate, with comments that can be up-voted, and no end to the debate. It is a living document.
2. Curator who explains his/her biases.
3. A format that includes simple claims, usually in one sentence, followed by the curator’s verdict and reasoning. Relevant links will be cited so the reader can check the reasoning for the verdict.
4. The curator updates the living debate as new and useful links, arguments, and insights occur on all sides.
5. The curator can not be a member of an organized political group because it would taint credibility. Ideally, the curator’s livelihood should benefit more from being unbiased than from holding a particular view.
6. Phase one is a call for links and arguments that the curator can sort and summarize to get the conversation started.
Now Scott has taken considerable time to test this process against several contentious issues. I've read the results and been impressed. I think it's worth your time to read them as well. Here's the first question he worked on:
- how it could be true that studies consistently show bias against woman while studies on pay gap do not reflect that bias (according to strangers on the the Internet). Clearly someone is wrong. But who?
LINK to the Verdict on Gender Bias in the Workplace (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-in-the-workplace)
I will admit, I have a selfish motive for wanting this process to work. I see the threads pop up every few days about anthropogenic global warming and it's dangerous consequences. I truly do consider myself an environmentalist, but I am confused. I honestly can't even decide which side of the argument "sounds right" to me, as a well educated and generally level-headed human. I wish there was a was to "know" the answer, and then, to know what to do with that information. Also, I find the kinds of people who are most willing to engage in debates of this type to be supremely annoying. I have most of them blocked on beyond.ca.
So, what do you folks think, Can this process, or one like it, work to give definitive answers to these contentious debates?
Dilbert creator Scott Adams is designing and testing just such a process. He has termed this "the Rationality Engine". In his own words, here is the outline:
Originally posted by Scott Adams
LINK to Scott Adams' Blog post (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/115299602036/rationality-engine-for-assisted-dying-prep-phase)
The Rationality Engine attempts to turn the uninformed and irrational opinions of the public into a coherent verdict via a system that has the following features:
Rationality Engine
1. Public debate, with comments that can be up-voted, and no end to the debate. It is a living document.
2. Curator who explains his/her biases.
3. A format that includes simple claims, usually in one sentence, followed by the curator’s verdict and reasoning. Relevant links will be cited so the reader can check the reasoning for the verdict.
4. The curator updates the living debate as new and useful links, arguments, and insights occur on all sides.
5. The curator can not be a member of an organized political group because it would taint credibility. Ideally, the curator’s livelihood should benefit more from being unbiased than from holding a particular view.
6. Phase one is a call for links and arguments that the curator can sort and summarize to get the conversation started.
Now Scott has taken considerable time to test this process against several contentious issues. I've read the results and been impressed. I think it's worth your time to read them as well. Here's the first question he worked on:
- how it could be true that studies consistently show bias against woman while studies on pay gap do not reflect that bias (according to strangers on the the Internet). Clearly someone is wrong. But who?
LINK to the Verdict on Gender Bias in the Workplace (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-in-the-workplace)
I will admit, I have a selfish motive for wanting this process to work. I see the threads pop up every few days about anthropogenic global warming and it's dangerous consequences. I truly do consider myself an environmentalist, but I am confused. I honestly can't even decide which side of the argument "sounds right" to me, as a well educated and generally level-headed human. I wish there was a was to "know" the answer, and then, to know what to do with that information. Also, I find the kinds of people who are most willing to engage in debates of this type to be supremely annoying. I have most of them blocked on beyond.ca.
So, what do you folks think, Can this process, or one like it, work to give definitive answers to these contentious debates?