4 ms·

Sorry, OT. But this makes me think of my conclusion made a few years ago; we are not rational beings. We're swamped with biases, and emotion tends to lead the

Sorry, OT. But this makes me think of my conclusion made a few years ago; we are not rational beings. We're swamped with biases, and emotion tends to lead the direction to where we seek our "facts". And it sounds like I mean it politically. But I don't. This feature is overwheling with us except for in the pure natural and measurable sciences. 2+2=4, done. But it ends there when it comes to rational decision making based on objective arguments. Everything you do privately, what phone you buy, car, where you live, how you pick your spouse, strategy for kids and all the other important things. Also at work, who you hire, where you decide to work, how you rate your colleague, technologies, business strategy, relationship with your boss. I've almost given up on rational argumentation and objective truth - and have identified the emotional and irrational as being the true battleground for decision making in our existence. Rant over. Sorry. Argdown is great im sure :D

jka 6y ago
No apology necessary :) When and where formalization of debate could be helpful -- or not -- is also worth talking about. I think there's an opportunity to add diagrammatic structure to make debate more understandable and accessible, while reducing distractions and (potentially time-wasteful) repetition of talking points. It's part of a broader idea: take an important topic, and imagine all the ways that bad actors might try to disrupt debate about that. Then try to figure out how to build a discussion system that is resilient against those efforts, while remaining participatory. (I'd agree I don't think any file format or system will let us reach rationality or objective truth any time soon - if they're even achieable goals - but they could help groups make decisions and debug prior mistakes and misunderstandings)

jka 6y ago

No apology necessary :) When and where formalization of debate could be helpful -- or not -- is also worth talking about. I think there's an opportunity to add diagrammatic structure to make debate more understandable and accessible, while reducing distractions and (potentially time-wasteful) repetition of talking points. It's part of a broader idea: take an important topic, and imagine all the ways that bad actors might try to disrupt debate about that. Then try to figure out how to build a discussion system that is resilient against those efforts, while remaining participatory. (I'd agree I don't think any file format or system will let us reach rationality or objective truth any time soon - if they're even achieable goals - but they could help groups make decisions and debug prior mistakes and misunderstandings)