Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3967
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:40 am UTC

One thing I think really keeps people from even attempting to build bridges of understanding is tribal peer pressure.

I've always tried to be very open minded and I've "tried on" all different kinds of political (and more generally philosophical) positions; at times in the past I've identified as things as different as "communist" and "libertarian". But that doesn't mean I'm neutral or seek false moderation; I always have some definite opinion. And after going back and forth over the pros and cons of different positions for many years I've settled into a position way off the mainstream political spectrum but definitely closer to Democrats than Republicans (at least in the same way that Earth is closer to Proxima Centauri than to Rigil Kentaurus). I'm not super fond of either of them, but there's almost never a circumstance where I'm less fond of a Democrat than Republican.

But I'll still admit when a conservative position has a point, even if I think there's an overriding counterpoint. (e.g. "That's thing's true, but this thing is also true, and must be accounted for, not just ignored.") But even when, in the end, I end up agreeing with a Democrat (which is usually), I find they're often angry at me for ceding any of the claims of a Republican argument, even if I immediately override them with a counterpoint. It's like it doesn't even matter if I end up at the same conclusion as them; the fact that I even gave "the enemy" a fair hearing and admitted their fleeting dialectical victories even if I then turn overturned those victories means that I'm not part of the tribe, and gets me treated as an enemy.

It's like people treat giving "the enemy" a fair hearing marks you as some sort of monster, the way reading an essay in favor of child rape would: even if you're sure there's not going to be any sound arguments in the essay and you're not going to agree with the conclusions, the fact that you would even deign to read it would mark you as a monster in the eyes of anyone who found out, so it's safer just not to read it at all. I want to tell those people: if you're so certain that "the enemy's" arguments are such obvious bullshit, then certainly there's no danger of being swayed by them, right? Their bullshittiness will be obvious. If you think there's some kind of danger in even listening to the other side, maybe you're not so sure if your beliefs after all, since how could obvious bullshit possibly threaten the truth?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 968
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby slinches » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:01 pm UTC

Agree, Pfhorrest. There's such animosity between the camps that we seem to forget that most people just want to make the world a better place for themselves and the people they care about. If we can hold onto that assumption, maybe we can extend the bridge long enough to find a bit of common ground. Then, even if we ultimately disagree, we can do so amicably and leave with both sides having a better understanding of the issues.

I'm not sure how to help encourage that through a "social platform", though. The social features would inherently be in competition with the concept. Any encouragement for people to form groups will necessarily enable means to identify and exclude those not in the group. And a purely anonymous site wouldn't have much draw or ability to retain interest.
Last edited by slinches on Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10169
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:59 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:But I'll still admit when a conservative position has a point, even if I think there's an overriding counterpoint. (e.g. "That's thing's true, but this thing is also true, and must be accounted for, not just ignored.") But even when, in the end, I end up agreeing with a Democrat (which is usually), I find they're often angry at me for ceding any of the claims of a Republican argument, even if I immediately override them with a counterpoint. It's like it doesn't even matter if I end up at the same conclusion as them; the fact that I even gave "the enemy" a fair hearing and admitted their fleeting dialectical victories even if I then turn overturned those victories means that I'm not part of the tribe, and gets me treated as an enemy.


Yeah, it's one of the major downsides of partisanship. Giving other ideas a fair shake runs the risk of being seen as disloyal.

And yeah, from any rational perspective, fear of listening to the other sides would be a sign that you believe that there's some danger to doing so. Someone who is certain they have the stronger argument ought not fear rational debate...but unfortunately, a great deal of political dialogue is less than rational, and often scoring a point, somehow, is seen as more important than fairness.

guenther wrote:Anyway, I bring that up just because it reminds me of what set me on this journey long ago. I spent a long time among liberals and would hear them wonder how the Right could be so stupid. And then I spent a long time among conservatives and heard them wonder how the Left could be so stupid. How could both sides come to this same conclusion about each other? That's the question that has really kept me going. It leads me to think that, perhaps in some small way, building bridges of understanding could help.


It's the mantra of both sides, really. But if you step outside of it, and glance at it from the outside, you get...something roughly akin to half the population of the US on each side. And not split neatly by IQ or anything. Oh, sure, demographic differences will always exist, but stupidity is not actually a very helpful explanation for why half the folks disagree with something. At least a few of those folks are smart, right?

Humans are prone to a number of biases, and in particular, find it easier to ascribe positive traits to those they already like, and negative to those they don't. This causes endless group interaction problems. It works pretty well in the context of a small tribe of people, treating everyone outside that as a potential enemy to kill or be killed by, but modern civilization is quite unlike the cultures humanity evolved in. We're simply terribly adapted to socialize with vast numbers of other people. I don't have a great solution for it either, really. Wish I did.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby Ranbot » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:08 pm UTC

I think the "Change My View" Reddit sub-forum has many of the pieces the OP is looking for in a social media platform. Civility is built into the Change My View forum rules. They give rewards [nudges] for people who actually do change their mind on a subject and rewards to those who constructively help change someone's mind. Their rules and rewards discourage the sorts of ideological grand-standing to gather "likes" from a particular side, which dominate other social media discourses.

Pfhorrest wrote:...(I personally actually recently was wondering "What's a place like Reddit, except not? A popular general-purpose discussion site that isn't full of mouthbreathing morons parroting memes at each other?" I couldn't think of a good answer. Slashdot used to kinda fill that niche, some niche forums like this one have expanded to have more of the desired breadth, but none of them are quite what I was looking for).

I've been a Slashdot member for 10+ years and I still frequent it occasionally, but most people with actual knowledge of technical subjects do not participate there any more. For any topic even slightly political the comments degenerate into a the same ideological drivel everywhere on the internet. Even worse though is blatant trolling racism, sexism, etc., which Slashdot refuses to police based on a stated moral stance against censorship. Moral stances are fine in theory, but their lack of action has allowed things to fester and driven the knowledgeable members away. Occasionally it's even said those ex-Slashdot users have migrated to xkcd forums or specific Reddit forums.

guenther
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby guenther » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:02 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:One thing I think really keeps people from even attempting to build bridges of understanding is tribal peer pressure.

I agree, and I think we see the extreme version on college campuses, where even allowing the other side to speak is an act of violence that must be met with violence. And a similar thing was true during 2016 election and even still today where conservatives who speak out against Trump are met with very nasty online attacks (Shapiro has spoken of the very antisemitic trolling he's received). I think at the edges you have a very vocal minority that actively aims to police behavior it disagrees with. I don't think they're all crazy people, but just people with very polarized perspectives. I don't know what to do about them.

My aim is at the people closer to the middle that are more moderate in their views. Some might engage in that policing behavior to some level, but I bet there's room for more nuance in their perspective. However, even given that, I think it's still easy to get stuck in traps that wind up aligning us towards polarization rather than pushing against it.

For example, if you see someone on your team do something bad, it might be natural to tsk and shake your head. But if you see someone on the other team do something bad, maybe it suddenly feels imperative to beat the drums at this travesty. Which is the right response, tsking or drum beating? There's no clear answer and it really depends on the person and the situation. I think this grayness is where bias can really take hold. Sometimes bias can bring people to deny outright facts, but I think more often it's responsible for these pernicious, subtle twists. We can self-reflect on any one of them and feel it's reasonable to react the way we did. But it takes looking at an aggregate to understand if there's a bias, if similar behavior causes outrage on one side more often than the other. As a general rule we're not good at this, so self-reflection fails.

I actually don't know what to do about that either. :) But my hope is that this more moderate group will have a larger openness to expanding their understanding, and it will push against this bias, and perhaps push against the fear of getting scolded by your own group.

slinches wrote:Agree, Pfhorrest. There's such animosity between the camps that we seem to forget that most people just want to make the world a better place for themselves and the people they care about. If we can hold onto that assumption, maybe we can extend the bridge long enough to find a bit of common ground. Then, even if we ultimately disagree, we can do so amicably and leave with both sides having a better understanding of the issues.

The problem is the people that actively push the idea that the other side is the thing getting in the way of us making the world a better place. I think this is true sometimes, but then it's too easy to broad brush and paint the whole side as a big monolithic thing that's dangerous.

This is where I hope building understanding will help. Perhaps naively. :) Right now my current working concept is a menu of passive things to consume, so there's really no way to fracture people into groups (unless I fail in some bad with with curating the list of options).

Tyndmyr wrote:I don't have a great solution for it either, really. Wish I did.

This is another quandary I have. When I talk to people, most of them will readily agree that our polarization, our tribalness, our filter bubbles and echo chambers are a big problem. And they shrug and say, "What can we do? It's human nature." How can we all know it's a problem but have nothing to do about it? It's not that I think we should have a solution, but I think there should be movements aiming to work on this.

Here's my theory. I don't dispute that it's human nature, but I think the issue is that it's all of our human nature. It's easy to self-reflect and feel that we personally have got it figured out, but what can we do about those fools over there? There's no reasoning with them!

In my humble opinion, the solution isn't to fix those people over there, but to culturally change how all of us deal with this. The history of science is full of stories of smart people with big egos butting up against data that shows bias creeping into their results. Getting people to self-reflect on the size of their own ego isn't the solution, but rather we needed a change on how everyone, not just big-ego people, approached science.

Science naturally lends itself to systematizing more so than partisan discussion, so there's no nice and clean solution to fix this mess. But I think the principle is the same. Maybe there's a different way to approach this stuff. I do think there's incentive to push us towards polarity because we're so easily motivated by outrage. But then there needs to be a push in the opposite direction. What if it was in vogue to do small things to break out of our filter bubble? What if there was a national holiday for connecting people across divides, for seeing the humanity in the enemy?

Ranbot wrote:I think the "Change My View" Reddit sub-forum has many of the pieces the OP is looking for in a social media platform. Civility is built into the Change My View forum rules. They give rewards [nudges] for people who actually do change their mind on a subject and rewards to those who constructively help change someone's mind. Their rules and rewards discourage the sorts of ideological grand-standing to gather "likes" from a particular side, which dominate other social media discourses.

Since my first post, I've moved away from trying to facilitate active engagement of people, except perhaps as an experiment to run on the side. But I hadn't heard of this and it sounds like it's right on target with what I was looking for. I'll have to check it out.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3967
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:36 am UTC

A brief parting thought before I disappear for the holiday weekend: what if we turned tribalism against itself? A second-order tribalism. Somehow build a tribe of people who are against tribalism, where all first-order tribalisms are shunned as "the other", and being tribal marks you as an outsider of the tribe.

The immediate problem that springs to mind is "maybe everyone already thinks they're doing this". Everyone already thinks that they are the open-minded ones fairly considering all arguments which of course leads them to the position that they've arrived at, and everyone else are therefore closed-minded bigots who won't listen to reason; therefore, hypocritically, it's seen as unreasonable to listen to those someone-elses and their closed-minded bigotry, so they close their minds and become bigots against them. (This seems to verge into the Paradox of Tolerance territory here).

Which I guess makes the problem "how do we do that, but keep people from being hypocrites about it?" Build a tribe who's against tribalism and hypocrisy? Who shun anyone who acts tribal or hypocritical?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6864
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:45 am UTC

guenther wrote:This is another quandary I have. When I talk to people, most of them will readily agree that our polarization, our tribalness, our filter bubbles and echo chambers are a big problem. And they shrug and say, "What can we do? It's human nature." How can we all know it's a problem but have nothing to do about it? It's not that I think we should have a solution, but I think there should be movements aiming to work on this.
People who first meet and interact with one another in support of a common cause -- a shared interest -- a specific goal -- will get along much more readily than people who first meet and interact with one another in opposition. That seems trivial, but I think it's important: It's much easier to love and respect someone if you first know them through a shared, positive experience. If a Christian and an atheist first meet while working together in a soup kitchen, they're much more likely to get along and discuss their differences positively than if they first meet at a debate about the existence of God.

Charity is great for this; so is volunteer work. The whole point of spaces like that is to put aside your ego -- put aside your nonsense -- roll up your sleeves -- and help someone else. I think that's a fantastic starting point for people who otherwise disagree to work together and construct a diverse, vibrant, positive community. Games are good for this, too, but charities are particularly great because of how they can benefit people who aren't even involved.

It's really, really hard to dehumanize someone when you've seen them at their best -- worked with them to do something wonderful. No matter how much you disagree with them on everything else, you can always fall back on what you admire about them. And once you have those shared interests, you might start to understand where the other person is coming from -- why they believe what they believe. That's when the bridges start getting built.

TL;DR version: If you're interested in building bridges, convincing people to work together on something they don't disagree on is how you do it. Positive relationships need solid foundations, and you can't construct a solid foundation out of disagreements. You need to find spaces where we agree.

guenther
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby guenther » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:38 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Which I guess makes the problem "how do we do that, but keep people from being hypocrites about it?" Build a tribe who's against tribalism and hypocrisy? Who shun anyone who acts tribal or hypocritical?

It's an interesting idea. :) But I'm thinking that cornering people and telling them how bad they are won't make the sharp dividing lines any less sharp. Plus I'm betting you'd get a coalescing of who the group thinks really is the culprit of tribalism and needs the shunning, and it would probably just fall on the same dividing lines you're trying to fix.

The Great Hippo wrote:TL;DR version: If you're interested in building bridges, convincing people to work together on something they don't disagree on is how you do it. Positive relationships need solid foundations, and you can't construct a solid foundation out of disagreements. You need to find spaces where we agree.

Building bridges to work together and have a positive relationship sounds good, but is beyond what I'm trying to do here. They all use the same bridge-building metaphor, but my aim is just getting people to broaden their understanding.

But I'm open to the idea that a broader understanding could (or should) go beyond just the intellectual arguments on areas of disagreement. I put that in my top post, but I haven't expanded on it because I don't know what it would look like in an app.

One idea I had was having random pairings between users and have them chat to obtain very specific objectives like to find out why the other person cares so much or how they feel the other side gets them wrong. This could include objectives like finding an interest they both share. But I didn't know how to make that not sound contrived.

Having people physically work together in areas of agreement sounds like a great idea. I joined a very pro-Trump FB group and they had the idea of wearing their Trump shirts and going out and doing community work together to show people they cared. I had the idea that it would be even more powerful if there were people with pro-Trump and anti-Trump shirts working side-by-side. However, I didn't last long enough in the group to suggest it. This seems beyond the scope of the app unless it's just suggesting meetups or something.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby Zamfir » Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:03 am UTC


But I'm open to the idea that a broader understanding could (or should) go beyond just the intellectual arguments on areas of disagreement. I put that in my top post, but I haven't expanded on it because I don't know what it would look like in an app.

But why do you want a dedicated app ( or an online platform) at all?

Mutex
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby Mutex » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 pm UTC

This article seemed relevant to this thread: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... ics-debate

TLDR: People find listening to alternative political points of view actively unpleasant, and so avoid it as much as possible.

“People on the left and right,” the study concludes, “are motivated to avoid hearing from the other side for some of the same reasons: the anticipation of cognitive dissonance and the undermining of a fundamental need for a shared reality with other people.”

(...)

Both liberals and conservatives fail here because the human brain fails here. The answer to “fake news” is not just deleting posts that are factually incorrect. It’s motivating people to be curious, and to seek out information that contradicts what they believe in an open-minded way.

Unless Facebook — or any social media — can find a means to make opposing points of view enjoyable to consume, or somehow incentivize seeing the other side, the internet will continue to divide and fracture into competing and alternative understandings of reality. Because right now the conclusion all this research points to is simple: We find interacting with other points of view to be unpleasant. And it’s hard to build a viral consumer product around an unpleasant experience.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby SuicideJunkie » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:42 pm UTC

Marketing it similar to how they push sour candy and suicide hot sauce might work.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby SDK » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:15 pm UTC

"Are you tough enough to handle the other side!?"
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

guenther
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby guenther » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:19 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm saying you don't even *touch* our areas of disagreement. You might enjoy interacting with people you disagree with, but most of us don't. We want to hear what we already "know" to be true. We want to reject other points of view.

The target audience for this is exactly the people that want to know more, and the core mission is to make that process easier. It could be that I'm part of a small minority that wants this, but I suspect it's wider spread than it would seem. Pinning down what people want is a tricky thing (I say more about this below).

The idea of getting people to work together on a shared goal sounds good. This is what corporate team building exercises are all about, and I get why you wouldn't want to open with everyone's feelings on Trump and then move into trust falls. I agree that this is a powerful technique, and more of this in any particular community would be awesome, but it's not a scalable solution.

Zamfir wrote:But why do you want a dedicated app ( or an online platform) at all?

What's a way to reach people and accomplish this goal without a social platform? That's a real question, and I'm open to alternatives. The whole idea is to make the process of leaving your echo chamber easier. Apps can reach lots of people, and everyone already knows how to install and run them.

Mutex wrote:This article seemed relevant to this thread: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... ics-debate

TLDR: People find listening to alternative political points of view actively unpleasant, and so avoid it as much as possible.

This is exactly on point, so thank you for sharing it.

But my response is: Would you get similar results if you put cookies and carrots in front of people? How about a massage chair and a treadmill? If so, would we decide that people just don't want to be healthy and give up on the notion?

This goes back to the idea of what people want. We clearly have preferences for what is enjoyable in the moment. But we also have a capacity to build higher level goals and longer term plans. We can forgo the fun thing in the moment if it is helping us get to somewhere we want down the road. That is also a want.

The point of this thought experiment isn't to solve the problem and get everyone to be perfectly civil online. Food and exercise are a great analogy. There's no solution because it's a really hard problem. But if you Google about trying to be healthy, you'll find find lots of sites aiming to grease the skids. It still requires people to choose this option, and going down this road takes work. But in our collective conscience we know it's good, we encourage people to do it, and we have resources at the ready to reduce the hurdles as much as possible.

That's what I'd like to see with the echo chamber problem.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10169
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:31 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:A brief parting thought before I disappear for the holiday weekend: what if we turned tribalism against itself? A second-order tribalism. Somehow build a tribe of people who are against tribalism, where all first-order tribalisms are shunned as "the other", and being tribal marks you as an outsider of the tribe.

The immediate problem that springs to mind is "maybe everyone already thinks they're doing this". Everyone already thinks that they are the open-minded ones fairly considering all arguments which of course leads them to the position that they've arrived at, and everyone else are therefore closed-minded bigots who won't listen to reason; therefore, hypocritically, it's seen as unreasonable to listen to those someone-elses and their closed-minded bigotry, so they close their minds and become bigots against them. (This seems to verge into the Paradox of Tolerance territory here).

Which I guess makes the problem "how do we do that, but keep people from being hypocrites about it?" Build a tribe who's against tribalism and hypocrisy? Who shun anyone who acts tribal or hypocritical?


I mean, that's basically what "tolerate everything but intolerance" amounts to in practice. Everyone assumes they're the tolerant ones, and those differing, why, they must be intolerant. Can't tolerate that.

So, in practice, there is no difference.

The Great Hippo wrote:People who first meet and interact with one another in support of a common cause -- a shared interest -- a specific goal -- will get along much more readily than people who first meet and interact with one another in opposition. That seems trivial, but I think it's important: It's much easier to love and respect someone if you first know them through a shared, positive experience.


Honestly, I think shared suffering works too. You and another going through a miserable experience together can build a relationship. It's similar, in that there's teamwork, rather than opposition, but in some cases, it might be even stronger.

This is probably harder to ethically set up than volunteering for charity, though.

guenther wrote:One idea I had was having random pairings between users and have them chat to obtain very specific objectives like to find out why the other person cares so much or how they feel the other side gets them wrong. This could include objectives like finding an interest they both share. But I didn't know how to make that not sound contrived.


That sounds interesting. If you make a game of sorts out of it, and vary up the objectives, and both folks objectives are hidden, it might inject some creativity into it. More work would be needed to make it functional, but it's an interesting basis.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby Ranbot » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:38 pm UTC

guenther wrote:
Ranbot wrote:...the "Change My View" Reddit sub-forum...

...I hadn't heard of this and it sounds like it's right on target with what I was looking for. I'll have to check it out.

Earlier this year NPR's Planet Money did an interesting story/podcast about changing one's views from a economics angle, and the Change My View Reddit was part of their discussion.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017 ... nd-thought

Tyndmyr wrote:
guenther wrote:One idea I had was having random pairings between users and have them chat to obtain very specific objectives like to find out why the other person cares so much or how they feel the other side gets them wrong. This could include objectives like finding an interest they both share. But I didn't know how to make that not sound contrived.

That sounds interesting. If you make a game of sorts out of it, and vary up the objectives, and both folks objectives are hidden, it might inject some creativity into it. More work would be needed to make it functional, but it's an interesting basis.

I'm imagining something like Tinder... Swipe right to debate? :lol:

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10169
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:50 pm UTC

Hah, dunno if swiping is quite up to gameplay, by itself, but perhaps something roughly akin to that.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5634
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby ucim » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:39 am UTC

Swipe right for debate, swipe left for contradiction. Swipe up for abuse. Swipe down for something completely different.

Or maybe that's too silly.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

guenther
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Crossing Divides - A Social Platform

Postby guenther » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:03 am UTC

Ranbot wrote:Earlier this year NPR's Planet Money did an interesting story/podcast about changing one's views from a economics angle, and the Change My View Reddit was part of their discussion.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017 ... nd-thought

I actually had heard that episode but forgot about it. They boil the success down to the set of rules they have in place and, of course, to the moderators enforcing them. I don't know that I'd want to implement a "Change My View" style discussion since the focus would be more about learning the other person's perspective. But to implement a similar award system, I'm not sure what metric I'd use. When someone reports that their mind has been changed, that's a clear event. But how do you know when understanding has been reached? Should that even be the metric?

Tyndmyr wrote:That sounds interesting. If you make a game of sorts out of it, and vary up the objectives, and both folks objectives are hidden, it might inject some creativity into it. More work would be needed to make it functional, but it's an interesting basis.

Gamifying it sounds neat. I had the idea of a simple quiz to learn the other side. But what are the answers? Would I be curating them? (that sounds like a can of worms) Would they be generated by polling users? There are some party games where you have to guess what answer the other person would give. Perhaps one of the chat-roulette (I keep coming back to that format, for better or worse) objectives would be to chat over topic X for five minutes, and then play that game with pre-written questions on that topic.

For the idea of generating answers base on polling users, we could steal something like this candy quiz. Perhaps all users would identify themselves by some menu of labels (check all that agree, so we're not just boxing you into simply conservative or liberal). And then they'd get a series of pairings they'd have to rate based on which is more important/condemnable/worthy of government funding/etc. This would provide a ranked set of choices, and then there could be a quiz on how well you could organize them by label. "Sort these from high to low on how Liberals rate them on Importance."

ucim wrote:Swipe right for debate, swipe left for contradiction. Swipe up for abuse. Swipe down for something completely different.

Smash phone against your head for "being-hit-on-the-head" lessons. Throw phone across the room to quit the app in frustration.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests