4 ms·

Re: can persuasive technology methods create tools/processes of radical neutrality. I'm actively contributing to a tool called Pol.is[3]. It's designed to be c

by patcon 6y ago

Re: can persuasive technology methods create tools/processes of radical neutrality. I'm actively contributing to a tool called Pol.is[3]. It's designed to be consensus-building tech. It's part of some pretty rad democratic processes in Taiwan[1]. It basically just puts a more approachable visualization over some overwise intimidating (but basic) statistical methods of "dimensional reduction", like PCA or UMAP. This visualization lets any participant explore all the statements that each statistical group agrees and disagrees on together. These "opinion groups" are just neutral statistical clusters. That feels important. It's just an integration of gut-feel statements that people perform a hot-take of: agree/disagree/pass. But it turns into this machine for everyone to independantly uncover the deep stories of each group. Once groups form, for complex but focussed issues, there are often 3-4 groups, even if you maybe thought it was just "us and them". Light-hearted example: https://pol.is/3ntrtcehas https://pol.is/3ntrtcehas This tool does lots of interesting things psychologically. One of my working theories of what makes it unique (I admit to having a few) is that it incentivizes the most passionate participants in a discussion to do the hard work of finding ever-more-nuanced "majority opinions" that everyone agree on under the differences. (These are elevated in the UI.) The nature of this incentive is up to the people who are designing the process in which the tool is embedded. For e.g., they might say that every "majority opinion" uncovered will shape an agenda item topic in a future livestreamed meeting of powerful people. So now you have the most passionate participants (who might otherwise shake apart concensus if their energy were directed otherwise), trying to craft clever statements to "manipulate" people in other groups to agree. But in essence, what this means is that those passionate people are exploring the consensus statements of opinion groups other than their own. They want to understand the group so that they can drop a statement into the opinion space between groups. But even if the intentions are not noble, and someone is just trying to "trick" others into agreeing, that participant is still doing deep work to delve into the theory of mind of the other groups, as evidenced through that groups consensus statements. Basically, the most active, passionate and potentially disruptive participants are encouraged to learn about their opponents in order to sway them, and in doing so, they accidentally indoctrinate themselves into empathic bridge positions. And these bridge positions are perhaps very important to stabilizing consensus and resolving conflict[2]. I'll admit that I wonder what a political or democratic system might look like if we used tools like this to elevate the voices of participants who straddle bridge positions between groups. Like what if we had democratic processes where instead of sending ambassadors from the center of opinion groups, we actually elevated those from the boundary spaces. (Maybe this was always the benefit of systems that use random sortition to elect leaders?) The selection of those people would be relatively politically neutral, as it's not a subjective choice, but a statistical one. Yes, one can probably "fake" being moderate, but to truly embody it, perhaps that changes you. And what effect would it have to send these bridge people (even transiently, for just one topic) into a position of power, to pass judgement? [1]: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/taiwan-democracy-social-media https://www.wired.co.uk/article/taiwan-democracy-social-medi... [2]: https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_can_groups_make_good_decisions/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_... [3]: https://github.com/pol-is/polis https://github.com/pol-is/polis

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I had an idea in a similar vein after reading the article and I would be interested in getting your thoughts. As I see it, the problem statement is as follows: 1) individuals are subjected to vast amounts of political persuasion in their daily lives. This persuasion can be purchased by the highest bidder to subtly influence public opinion in a way that is counter to it's own interest. Ultimately, this can weaken the marketplace of ideas, rational discourse, and consensus. My idea is an app, forum, or social group which pairs individuals to discuss issues in a manner that builds consensus. Users would identify their position on issues as well as how strongly they hold that position. They would then be offered the opportunity to discuss and issue which they care deeply about with someone who is indifferent. This could yield a high persuasion return for time invested, and help build consensus. This could have an effect similar to door to door campaigning, but with the ability to target politically active individuals who a with high impact topics. One thing that I find particularly attractive, is that it would focus the discussion on individual issues, opposed to platforms or parties. What do you think?
- patcon 6y ago
  Hi! I like your comment, so thank you. > This persuasion can be purchased by the highest bidder Yes. In other words, they're purchasing weighted edges in the social graph: buying new edges (that send peer signals toward the target within a graph of social influence), or amplifying weight of existing edges representing peer relations. The whole attention economy is not actually about the knowledge or content that flows through this network, rather it's all about buying/building/fortifying edges/connections between marks and those who will exert influence on them, in the direction favoured by the buyer. It's the shape of the network that's damaged, not the content flowing through it (which we've never had more access to). Empathy is just an existing biological solution to a similar network problem, maybe even a biological technology (sorry, can't help it with the weird jargon here -- was a biochemist in a past life). > My idea is an app, forum, or social group which pairs individuals to discuss issues It's a neat idea, but to be clear: why would people participate? I feel that without a self-interested reason, audience would bias toward process-oriented and highly empathic people who already care for the sake of caring. (I would participate, for instance.) imho some aspect of participation needs to give the process and participant teeth they didn't previously have, or give the participant power in a larger system. That's why people vote. That's why they run for election. That's why they join boards/committees. My mindset is interested in empathic tools primarily where they marry power-seeking and empathy together again in a new process. It's a neat idea though, and don't take my words for discouragement pls! It's one thing to seek social/tech tools that sit beside charity or art or altruism in the cultural landscape (which it sounds like you're rolling around), but it's another to seek social/tech tools that sit alongside elections or Robert's Rules or other governance processes (where I believe Polis operates). We definitely need more people looking for opportunities here, so I'm grateful you're thinking on these things :)

by patcon 6y ago

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I had an idea in a similar vein after reading the article and I would be interested in getting your thoughts. As I see it, the problem statement is as follows: 1) individuals are subjected to vast amounts of political persuasion in their daily lives. This persuasion can be purchased by the highest bidder to subtly influence public opinion in a way that is counter to it's own interest. Ultimately, this can weaken the marketplace of ideas, rational discourse, and consensus. My idea is an app, forum, or social group which pairs individuals to discuss issues in a manner that builds consensus. Users would identify their position on issues as well as how strongly they hold that position. They would then be offered the opportunity to discuss and issue which they care deeply about with someone who is indifferent. This could yield a high persuasion return for time invested, and help build consensus. This could have an effect similar to door to door campaigning, but with the ability to target politically active individuals who a with high impact topics. One thing that I find particularly attractive, is that it would focus the discussion on individual issues, opposed to platforms or parties. What do you think?

patcon 6y ago
Hi! I like your comment, so thank you. > This persuasion can be purchased by the highest bidder Yes. In other words, they're purchasing weighted edges in the social graph: buying new edges (that send peer signals toward the target within a graph of social influence), or amplifying weight of existing edges representing peer relations. The whole attention economy is not actually about the knowledge or content that flows through this network, rather it's all about buying/building/fortifying edges/connections between marks and those who will exert influence on them, in the direction favoured by the buyer. It's the shape of the network that's damaged, not the content flowing through it (which we've never had more access to). Empathy is just an existing biological solution to a similar network problem, maybe even a biological technology (sorry, can't help it with the weird jargon here -- was a biochemist in a past life). > My idea is an app, forum, or social group which pairs individuals to discuss issues It's a neat idea, but to be clear: why would people participate? I feel that without a self-interested reason, audience would bias toward process-oriented and highly empathic people who already care for the sake of caring. (I would participate, for instance.) imho some aspect of participation needs to give the process and participant teeth they didn't previously have, or give the participant power in a larger system. That's why people vote. That's why they run for election. That's why they join boards/committees. My mindset is interested in empathic tools primarily where they marry power-seeking and empathy together again in a new process. It's a neat idea though, and don't take my words for discouragement pls! It's one thing to seek social/tech tools that sit beside charity or art or altruism in the cultural landscape (which it sounds like you're rolling around), but it's another to seek social/tech tools that sit alongside elections or Robert's Rules or other governance processes (where I believe Polis operates). We definitely need more people looking for opportunities here, so I'm grateful you're thinking on these things :)