Argument-Conclusion Driven Forum

[grithin]

Anyone who has some degree of deep knowledge about a topic and has experience with online forums knows there are substantial disincentives against spending any time attempting to argue points or convey deep knowledge.

I can build a system that will remove most of these disincentives, and will encourage the cumulation of non-repetitive topics.  I would set this system up as a free system for use for the benefit that it brings in clarifying reality for others.  I do not, however, think there is any significant demand for this.

I would like to know if any of you have a strong desire for such a system, or know of how to reach people with a strong desire and willingness to use such a system.

[algernon]

Can you expand upon what you mean by disincentives with a real life example?

[A4E]

Isn't wikipedia such a system? Despite its flaws, it is revered, and in demand by many.

[grithin]

"Can you expand upon what you mean by disincentives with a real life example?"

Notice my reply on

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46427-donald-trump-on-eminent-domain/


Wherein one of the posters makes a new topic based on my reply, but fails to copy over my reply

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46439-voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils/

--

"Isn't wikipedia such a system? Despite its flaws, it is revered, and in demand by many."

Wikipedia is for stating shallow facts, not for debate, argument, or narrative conclusions (although they have a discussions feature).  Back in 2007, I created a wiki for "liberty movement topics", and posted it on the Alex Jones prisonplanet forum.  No one contributed.  And, on that note, I also, requested, around that time, replies from anyone interested in creating a "free and open society think tank".  I got thousands of post views and about 20 different people replying, so I made the site.  Of those 20, about 4 people joined the site (once fostt.org), and of those 4 people, no one did any of the activities I recommended or continued any of the discussions I had presented.

There are two dynamics I am describing here

-    the writers on wikipedia are not the same in nature as the "liberty movement" or "peaceful parenting" members (I could describe why this is, but it is an unnecessary and long tangent)
-    "liberty movement" or "peaceful parenting" members are primarily consumers (>99%), wherein about 1% pretend to be producers, but when push comes to shove, aren't.  

So, this topic represents almost an entirely irrational panning for gold - as though I were at some water park doing it.  Hope can be a wasteful thing.

[csekavec]

Anyone who has some degree of deep knowledge about a topic and has experience with online forums knows there are substantial disincentives against spending any time attempting to argue points or convey deep knowledge.

 

I feel ya. In my experience online it's almost always wasted unless the conversation partners share a argument style and objective (truth, of course).

 

What I think would be very nice is a forum like this:  Each thread open for view by anyone but can only be posted in by two parties:  OP arguing for the measure, and someone else arguing against. Once a viewer locks in as the opposition they have a time limit (set by op) to post. Each post they make resets the timer. Each post by anyone has a character limit to encourage Socratic dialogue instead of text walls. If the OP doesn't post in time the thread locks. If the opposer doesn't post in time the thread becomes available for another viewer to 'tap in' and either pick up where the last guy left off or start their own argument against.

 

There are sites already existing that are somewhat similar to what I described above.  But none frequented by liberty minded folk. 

[grithin]

What you appear to describe is software for a conventional debate.  There is indeed software for this already, and it is mostly used by debate clubs and schools.  What I envisions is based on a specification I wrote years ago to address the problems with voting on issues.  I don't presently have that paper, but I can remember some factors necessary to consider for such a solution:
-    there are often more than two possible considerations for any particular issue (these are not necessarily contrary positions, as within a debate)
    -    ex: should we defund X? 1. If we do, "a" may suffer.  2. If we do, "b" may happen. 3. ...
-    in discussing any particular consideration for an issue, a branching may occur.
    -    ex: if "b" happens, then "c" might happen.  Or, if "b" happens, "d" might happen
-    a period of time should be given for the exploration of branched considerations.  There are no arbitrary posts.  Instead, people add factors as branches into considerations, and deductions based on those factors.  This organization should prevent repetition within an issue, and should allow clarity of deductions since deductions are  linked to considerations.
-    in voting, occurring after the discussion period, a synopsis of the deductions should be available, along with the "tree" of considerations.

There were a lot of other things regarding voting and such in the paper (such as weighting depending on issue specialization, penalization for various things (re-raising issues), linking any law/rule passed to the "tree" of consideration, so if the considerations change, it would necessitate removing the law), and while it is amusing to conceptually construct better systems, there is virtually no demand for this.

I attribute this to rational self benefit.  People who are not smart, perhaps <130 IQ, will not understand the need for sometimes complex systems, and therefore will not demand them (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?372831-The-Merit-or-Lack-of-Merit-of-a-Return-to-the-Constitution (my attempt to confront Ron Paul supporters with their fallacy)).  And, most smart people are presented with a choice:
-    make a lot of money and enjoy life
-    work against a massive system, that is almost immovable, for people who aren't like you.

And, the trend I seem to see is smart people who had made a lot of money and are semi-retired becoming commentators.  Unfortunately, their efforts in commentating are not a consequence of their desire to change things, it is a consequence of their desire for talking and for attention (paul craig roberts).

So again, the prospects are grim, and it appears I am gold panning in a bathtub.

[csekavec]

Sounds highly moderated?  The structure is interesting. Reminds me of concept visualization software, as a forum website.    

 

If there isn't demand now it doesn't mean it isn't something for which there would be demand.  There have been many websites that changed the paradigm by creating demand for something heretofore unseen. 

[grithin]

The moderation can be done by reputation and voting.  This is a complex subject who's details I won't go into here, but I've already built a system which handles automated vetting.

For almost all successful products that the public sees as first to the market, there were products of the same nature before them.  Google is the easiest example of this, but it fails to convey the entirety of the problem because google was better then the preceding search engines (and funded by the CIA, so I'm told).  You can be the first and you can have a good product, but if the market timing is off, you can lose out, and someone with even a lesser product that comes into the market later when the demand has been increased will succeed.  I've encountered this dynamic many times with my own projects.


I have no reason to think any non-financially interested parties would be interested in this system.  General voters are too stupid, governments are not interested, and the "liberty movement" members are also, generally, too stupid.

I base these conclusions on another system I built a few years ago.  It was a system in which you link entities together, and rate the influence one entity has on another, and rate the 'for-ness' or 'against-ness'  one entity has for another.  On the surface, it was fairly simple. All you had to do is create an entity, then optionally link it to other entities and describe the relations using those two factors and optionally a description.  The system would then use a fairly complex algorithm I created to find all of the indirect relations.  The idea was to see something like this:

- company x donates to organization y
- organization y is owned by Bill Sanders
- system says on the "Bill Sanders" entity page: Bill Sanders is supported and influenced by company x

This, to me, seemed like an entirely simple interface.  I even wrote a tutorial just to be sure.  This system, on the front end, is less complex then the system I am envisioning regarding this topic.  And yet, almost all participants in the system were total failures.

- at most, I got about 10k views on the articles I posted to attract attention to the system
- I paid one person to create content.  I estimate this person had between a 110 to 120 IQ.  This person failed to use the system correctly.
- 4 Other random people created accounts and used the system.  One person managed, after using the system incorrectly for a few entities, to figure it out and use it correctly for her final entity creation

So again, gold panning in a water fountain.

I will say, however, we are at a great time for the likes of Stefan, who offers fairly easily digestible, middle class oriented information.  And, this period of time is unlike much of history, as presented as the primary problem in the non-published, internet transmitted, very obscure, book to which I can't remember the exact title to (tell me if you do), whos title was something like "nihilistic socialism".  That is, those who can move the system, the middle class, are naturally attached to the system, and will ignore intellectual pleas to change the system, until they are downtrodden, at which point, they no longer have such power (as discussed in the book as the reason it was difficult to start socialism from the middle class).  But, what we have now is a global downturn, where many middle class people are concerned about their future, so much so as to seek out information, which is available because of the internet, like that presented by Stefan.
 

[LovePrevails]

sounds great I'd love to see it in action

[csekavec]

"You should hammer your iron when it is glowing hot"  Publius Syrus

 

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; make it hot by the striking"  Yeats

 

I've been in several start ups. Some success some failure. Yeats is right; Syrus wrong. Making a product isn't enough you must sell it. Timing doesn't matter. Good luck.

[grithin]

"You should hammer your iron when it is glowing hot"  Publius Syrus

 

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; make it hot by the striking"  Yeats

 

I've been in several start ups. Some success some failure. Yeats is right; Syrus wrong. Making a product isn't enough you must sell it. Timing doesn't matter. Good luck.

 

Try to sell an AA battery in the 1100s.. Your bias probably comes from that fact that, in being in start ups, you are almost necessarily involved in a product that someone is betting there will be a market for, and so your measure for the success of the start ups is based on how well they sold the product - which is often the crux.

 

I think I have an accurate assessment of the market, and I'm not going to build this system unless I see a specific, imminent, probable, case for its utility.

 

Thanks for the attempt at motivation, but as seems to be my motto on here: haste makes waste

[csekavec]

I'm not trying to motivate. I'm trying to correct your bad philosophy. To have success you have to overcome your 'woe is me' attitude. I don't care what stupid people argue about your idea. Is it good? 

 

If it is, develop it. If it isn't, make it good. If you aren't willing to do either then don't make posts about your idea. 

 

If you truly have the equivalent of a AA in the 1100's then invent some trifle to make your invention meaningful. A battery is far more complex than a basic useful circuit. But in reality your invention isn't that new.  If you just want an excuse for not taking action then I suppose you have it. You asked: 

 

I would like to know if any of you  ...... know of how to reach people with a strong desire and willingness to use such a system.

 

Yes. Create it.  Prospect for clients. Sell it.