Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Connecting the Dots...
John Sechrest wrote:
> Lets work it out by hand.
> So we have this list of auguments and positions. Which is
> nessesarily incomplete.
> Is it true to understand, that I have to explore to the tiniest detail
> the whole thing?
> Is there an alternative format that provides for better understanding?
> It is clear that the act of summarizing what has been said is important.
> We have lost several bits of the argument into the email pile.
> What transformation of this pile of bits can we make that will
> increase understanding.
> It is not clear to me that voting on nodes helps (yet)
> It would help if there was a way to catagorize auguments.
> It would help if there was a way to visually see the relationship
> of arguments.
I'm in complete agreement with what you've said here. Can anyone
who has ever facilitated an IBIS discussion (or any discussion,
for that matter), please chime in here and give us some clue as
to what ought to be happening next? (01)
Are we tilting at windmills, or is it impossible to create a
tool that will help us break such log jams?? (02)
My suspicion at the moment is that:
a) To hope to achieve any sort of resolution, we would have
to drill so far down into our past history, expectations,
and beliefs that the exercise may well prove impractical. (03)
b) That perhaps we need a delineation of cases into "kinds of
problems with which tools can help" and "kinds where no help
is possible". (04)
> I hope jacks wiki comes up soon. Perhaps that will help us.
You and me both. I'm looking forward to working with it.
* This one
* What kinds of topics should we discuss to evaluate tools
of this kind?
* What kinds of requirements are there for a tool that will
allow divergent opinions to achieve congruence?
* Once we represent the structure of a discussion, does it
really matter whether we label things as "pro" or "con",
or whatever? (05)