Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
The internet has allowed like-minded individuals to form echo chambers and share information without considering opposing viewpoints. To combat this, there is a need for an online forum that presents arguments in context with counterarguments and ranks them based on supporting evidence. These arguments should also be categorized based on logical fallacies and independent verification. Conflict resolution techniques and objective criteria can help in making informed decisions. The goal is to create a website that merges different political perspectives and encourages dialogue. This approach has been developed over the past 20 years and can revolutionize how we engage in online discussions. We should send our internet arguments through a survival-of-the-fittest idea deathmatch. Fixing the way we argue online might not feel important. Maybe you think only weirdos argue online. But it's really crucial because a lot of people are getting together with like-minded individuals, groups, online, you know, QAnon and all of these different things and they're sharing memes and they're... The online community is only going to grow and have more power. So, you know, Nazis, murderous communists and whatever Putin is doing can only occur in socially isolated echo chambers. But it's not just bad guys overseas that don't think well. Our political expressions usually have less to do with reason and more to do with group dynamics and virtue signaling. Even when it's anti-virtue, virtue signaling. Oh, I'm not into virtue signaling. I'm a tough, mean guy and a tough love and, you know, I'm not overly virtue concerned. I'm realistic. Well, that's all virtue signal. But in the early days of the internet, we many assumed that connecting our computers and connecting ourselves to each other would magically help. Unfortunately, the designers of every social network thoughtlessly helped us reconstruct our echo chambers online. Our only path forward is to build a forum or forums that we use to make decisions or share information that share information in context with each other. So that's the problem is the context. But it needs to be in context. So arguments need to be in context with counter arguments. And the support for a belief needs to be proportional to the supporting evidence. So this forum, this online forum, must attempt to make a comprehensive list of pro and con arguments for each belief. And these lists would expose our beliefs to arguments outside our social network. It would have to group similar ways of saying the same things to identify unique arguments. And we would need the best arguments at the top of a large list, you know, in order for the forum to be usable. To identify quality, we must develop argument scores based on sub-argument scores. So you have a belief with pro and con arguments, and then those pro and con arguments have their own pro and con arguments. And to help with this, we really need to categorize arguments if they are addressing if a belief has a logical fallacy or if it has been independently verified multiple times. So those two arguments would address truth has two types of verification or logically true. Is it free from, is it logically valid? We'll also identify if sentiments are essential. We would determine this by if they are likely, sentiments are essential. So that gets to the importance. We would determine this by if they have likely consequential cost or benefits, if assumed to be true. So there's two parts. There's if it's true and if it's consequential or important. Imagine if your mind had a list of potential costs and if you click on each of them and be presented with reasons to agree and disagree that a cost is or isn't likely. Okay, so what have I said so far? Two types of truth, and then you also have important. And finally, arguments can be true and important or meaningful, but still be irrelevant. So, for instance, if someone's arguing about a carbon tax, someone could post a reason to agree. And, you know, the grass is green. Sure, it's true, and it might be important for other arguments, but it's not relevant to this argument, or whatever. That's not an awesome example, but there really are three types. Three important things. If it's true, verified, or is free from logical fallacy. If it's important, has likely significant costs, or each of those costs or benefits have reasons to agree or disagree. And then finally, as I just said, even if we assume they are true and important, it might not necessarily be. So, all of these things, truth, importance, relation, can have a score. And that's what I argument. That's my simple argument. It's simple, but I believe crucial. So, we will use conflict resolution techniques to focus on the right things, examine the underlying interest of each side, and propose objective criteria. So, conflict resolution, what is that? Well, there's people from the Harvard, there's a Harvard group that, it's the Harvard Negotiation Project, Roger Fisher and William Urey, that taught there and wrote a book. And you have all this advice on how to settle conflicts, and the Harvard Negotiation Group are people that the State Department brings in to resolve conflicts. If each side is willing to try to make progress. So, we'll use, but let's say, using this simple argument on independent belief strength, and each argument will have scores based on their sub-argument. So, you know, truth, scores, importance score. All right. So, for example, human-caused global warming will have reasons to agree and disagree. It will also have scores based on the quantity and quality of independent replication of results. Conclusion will have cost-benefit analysis. And so, at the end of the day, humanity-caused global warming will have its own belief score change over time. This argument, you know, human-caused global warming, so the belief is humans-caused global warming, or humans are primary contributors to global warming. That will, that can, if true, that argument can be used to strengthen or weaken other arguments. For example, to strengthen or weaken the argument for or against a global carbon tax, or a national, or state, or city carbon tax. So, the score can strengthen or weaken each other belief, like those supporting carbon tax. However, each belief score will need to be multiplied by the argument-conclusion linkage. So, yeah, humans might be the primary contributor to global warming, but that doesn't necessarily mean a city should pay carbon tax, because most cities can't necessarily address global problems and the authority to rate commerce. I guess they can tax different rates. You know, so, you know, it, there's going to, the fact that global warming is man-caused, can be caused by, is caused by humans, if it's a fact or not, if it's going to have a truth score, you need to multiply that truth score by each individual conclusion that that truth is trying to support. And so that argument-conclusion linkage. So, based on the performance of sub-arguments, that if the belief were assumed to be accurate, they would necessarily support the conclusion. If, if, if it were true that global warming was caused by humans, would it necessarily support the belief that, you know, a small city should tax carbon? Well, there's pro and con arguments. I'm not going to try to get into whether that is true or not, but you would have pro or con arguments, and based on the pro or con arguments, you would see everything well organized. So, with purposely designed user experiences, why would the, would the internet, without purposely designed user experiences, why would the internet be any different than any other natural echoes? We know humans have had propaganda and lies and manipulators, you know, before the internet. Why did we think just connecting everyone to the internet, everything was just magically going to get better? No, we need to have purposely designed user interactions where we have reasons to agree and disagree, and pros and cons, and the things that I've just described. So, I have outlined how we can build such tools for the past 20 years. Again, it is a survive the fittest idea deathmatch. I've just barely started, and most of you probably have never designed a, a website before, and so it's probably not super exciting. I haven't designed a website. I have to explain this so that other people can help me fix our problem. But, you know, thinking about this over the past 20 years, you know, I, I keep coming across new things. Google PageRank algorithm has caused Google, has helped Google make hundreds of billions of dollars. I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's made like 200 or 300, and, you know, most all of it has come in through PageRank, little ads on the side of web search. But their copyright has expired, and I have a technique for using that to weigh the strength of a belief based on the supporting a pro-con argument. Um, we don't have, I don't have time to go into all, but I hope that you stick around, especially if you know how to design web pages, you like thinking about the future of politics, and imagine, help me imagine how we can do this better. If we use conflict resolution and moderation technique taught by the Harvard Negotiator, and also cost benefit, there's methods, there's a book called Cost Benefit Analysis Revolution by Cass Sunstein. He explains how you can do a benefit analysis, and the steps, and how, how you, um, how you can conduct it, when it makes sense to use it, and when it doesn't, alternative methods of doing a cost benefit. So, I believe we can have a website that we can use to make intelligent decisions together, collectively. And, if we could do this, it would change everything. There's no reason for a Republican and a Democratic party to have separate websites with different sets of facts, and different sets of assumptions that don't talk to each other. The founding fathers put together a constitution, but they knew the constitution would only work if we would talk to each other. Not if we would talk past each other, or ignore each other, and try to make arguments in a vacuum. They needed us to argue with each other. But the data on their Democrat website doesn't even come into contact with the data on the Republican website. They don't talk to each other. We need to merge the Democrat website and the Republican websites together. So, we need to merge them, and have all of the arguments from the Democrats, and all of the arguments from the Republicans together, with organized pro-con. We're going to group similar ways of saying the same thing, so there's not duplication of efforts. Duplication of, we're going to sort the arguments, the best pro-arguments, and the best con-arguments. We're going to identify logical fallacies, and strengths. How confident are we that each argument is a logical fallacy? What are the pro-arguments supporting a logical fallacy, and the con-arguments? What are the pro-arguments supporting such and such independent verification? You know, what are the best solutions to this problem? What are the likely interests of each party? You know, I don't know how to explain it all, without just going through every part. And I know that I'm not good at explaining. But I do honestly believe that this can solve all of our problems. If we fix our decision-making skills, and if we use conflict resolution techniques to design a website, is it a survival of the fittest death match, where we see scores for ideas? Ideas and arguments have scores. Arguments have scores, and conclusions have scores based on those arguments' scores. So, please, please, please, help me remake the world so that it is rational, and stay tuned for how we can do it. Thanks, and goodbye. www.globalonenessproject.org www.globalonenessproject.org www.globalonenessproject.org www.globalonenessproject.org www.globalonenessproject.org www.globalonenessproject.org www.globalonenessproject.org And, see you soon.
