Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Thomas, Slash, Wolfgang and Marc,

Thomas von der Elbe said:
> We are talking about the same and we have the same goal, believe it
> or not. :-)

Maybe we don't see it because I asked too precise a question?  My
question doesn't cover all aspects of opinion forming, but leaves out
many that are important to the process.  Maybe this gives folks the
impression that I think little of formal argumentation (Slash) or
social structuring (Marc).  Not so!  I understand these are crucial to
the process.  So please let me rephrase my question in those terms.
What I'm asking is, "Isn't opinion expression *equally* important?"


Slash said:
> My 2 cents: Basically it's worth it a try and everyone can and is
> supposed to do what he wants. My personal view, however, is, that it
> would be more real transparent, if the end results of such
> developments were stressed.  The way up to these end results often
> contains information, which consist of mistaken assumptions and so
> are practically 'noise'.  That's why I think that truthmapping.com's
> approach is very interesting: http://youtu.be/T8XgPDs_pHc

Thomas von der Elbe replied:
> Slash, you must be misunderstanding Mike. In his wording the
> developments which lead to the end results would be the discussion
> which leads to consensus. And I know, you don't see the discussion
> as noise.

But the discussion *would* be noise if it weren't supported by some
kind of formal argumentation.  Any process that lacks that support is
likely to be meaningless.  So I think Slash is right.

But Thomas is also right, because I don't suggest leaving out formal
argumentation.  (And in practice, we always include it.)

Slash said:
> But nevertheless, of course, I think that this intersteps [opinion
> expression] still should be accessable for the geeks being keen on
> the discussion and having the time to dive that deep into the
> discussion.

I wouldn't say the same of formal argumentation.  I would say it is
crucial and indispensable for almost everyone.  It simply *must* be
accomodated by the platform or the results will be garbage.  But
likewise I think for opinion expression; it too must be accomodated.
Please see my reasons below, and tell me if you agree, or disagree.


Wolfgang said:
> Mir ist durchaus bewusst, dass sich der Trend zu einer solchen
> strukturierten Arbeitsweise nur mühsam durchsetzt. Aber mir scheint
> sonnenklar, dass alle die ebenso mühsamen Versuche mit dem
> "delegated voting" letztlich nur auf eine Transformation der
> repräsentativen Demokratie hinauslaufen - also untauglich zur Lösung
> der gesellschaftlichen Probleme sind...
> 
> Deshalb halte ich es für wichtig, die tiefere Strukturierung von
> Argumenten und Bewertungen von Anfang an in die internationale
> Diskussion einzubringen. 
> 
> Was haltet ihr davon? 

I value your opinion, Wolfgang, but I don't trust Google translate
here.  (Is Wolfgang giving a thumbs up, or thumbs down?  :-)


Marc said,
> Opinion formation - as you described it - is a process over one's
> mind, right?  What about groups?  Do they have a collective opinion
> formation process also?

Yes, groups definitely form opinions.  Groups are a social structure
and social structuring is another crucial aspect of opinion forming.
It must be accomodated by the platform, or I think the process will
collapse under its own weight.

> > Again, I'm interested in the views of anyone in the group.  What
> > do you think of this notion of opinion expression?  Is it good,
> > bad or just plain ugly?  ;^)
> 
> IMHO it is one part of the puzzle and the basics needs to be
> reflected somehow in the domain model standardization. But the
> details are to be handled by the plug-ins or individual
> implementations. So I think that can be addressed by
> 
> participant has opinion
> group consits of participants
> group has position
> 
> And of course, the process to get to a groups position is far more
> complex ;o)
> 
> What do you think?

Yes, that seems right for the model.  At least it does not contradict
any working implementations that I know of.

But there are details that cannot be handled independently by the
plug-in implementations, as you suggest.  The problem of split opinion
formation, which I hope we can discuss, affects all opinion expression
tools together.  It therefore goes beyond individual tool projects.
They need outside help in order to solve it.  So I'm looking for help.
Only I'm not not quite sure this is the right group to ask.

Imagine a potential user approaches the group asking about the toolkit
you're designing.  She (or he) asks,

   * Where do I express my own opinion on this platform?

   * Where can I see the individual opinions of others?

   * Where can I see the overall shape of collective opinion that
     we're building together?

   * Where can I see how my own efforts are helping to shape it?

She is asking for a facility of opinion expression, as I call it; one
that reveals a "picture" having these basic elements:


  (2)                  my opinion (one dot)
             ....         |
          ..........      V
        ..............   ....  -+
       .......................  |  dissensus, or
       ......................   |  budding counter
        .............   ....    |  consensus here 
          ..........           -+
             ...
      |               |
      +---------------+
       rough consensus 
          over here


Here we see individual opinion (one dot), collective opinion (whole
picture) and some sense of how they all interrelate.  This is a very
crude illustration - no tool is likely to look quite like this - but
these are the essential *kinds* of information that are revealed.  You
don't see any formal argumentation or social structuring here, partly
because I don't have time or space to draw them, and partly because
the tool is not absolutely required to show them (though the one we
develop *does* show them, as Thomas says).

> > I think it's possible to go very far indeed.  But I wonder if
> > there's a place in it for the particular kind of technology I work
> > on, and the personal concerns that I have?
> 
> What make you think that this might not be the case?  As far as I
> know your concerns are tightly coupled to Votorola, aren't they?
> ... And as far as I understand in our discussion on the 'opinion
> formation' thread we are very close to eachother, aren't we?
>
> But I definitely want to learn more about your concerns and how you
> think they can match with the ones of our working group and even all
> other projects around...

You say that opinion expression is "one part of the puzzle".  Do you
think it's an essential part, now that I explain my meaning better?
And others, what do they think?

For my part, I promise soon to explain where my own work fits in.
Alex is kind in inviting us to speak, but I'm afraid I would waste
your time (and mine) with something that does not concern you.

Thank you for answering so patiently,

Michael


Slash said:
> My 2 cents:
> Basically it's worth it a try and everyone can and is supposed to do what
> he wants. My personal view, however, is, that it would be more real
> transparent, if the end results of such developments were stressed.
> The way up to these end results often contains information, which
> consist of mistaken assumptions and so are practically 'noise'.
> That's why I think that truthmapping.com's approach is very
> interesting:
> http://youtu.be/T8XgPDs_pHc
> 
> But nevertheless, of course, I think that this intersteps still should
> be accessable for the geeks being keen on the discussion and having
> the time to dive that deep into the discussion.
> 
> Greetings,
> / aka Oliver


Schallehn AT t-online.de said:
> Hallo Marc, 
> 
>       es tut mir leid, dass ich mich so abrupt aus dem Mumble verabschieden
> musste. 
> 
>       Aber das Ergebnis ist doch recht erfreulich! 
> 
>       Ebenso erfreulich finde ich Deine Korrespondenz mit Michael Allan. 
> 
>       Englisch scheint wieder mal vieles einfacher und klarer. 
> 
>       Da mein aktives Englisch zu schwach ist, möchte ich Dir meine
> Beiträge anvertrauen. 
> 
>       Du schriebst (was ich als Grundgerüst verstanden sehen möchte!): 
> 
>       > participant has opinion
>  > group consits of participants
>  > group has position 
> 
>       Was aber ist "position" (dt. Standpunkt) ?? 
> 
>       Die bisher übliche Vorstellung sehe ich so, dass position
> (="Standpunkt einer Gruppe") durch eine Menge von Aussagen
> repräsentiert wird, über die in der Gruppe Konsens oder zumindest
> KonsenT besteht. 
> 
>       Das ist mMn in mehrfacher Hinsicht zu eng. Eine partizipative
> Willensbildung muss mMn differenzierter vorgehen und das bisher
> übliche "Wegbügeln" ganz bewusst vermeiden:   *Standpunkt/position
> bezieht sich immer auf das Paar Gruppe<-->Thema. Jede Gruppe kann zu
> mehreren unterschiedlichen Themen "Standpunkte" haben. (Zu den meisten
> Themen wird die Gruppe keinen Standpunkt haben. Muss das gesagt
> werden?)
>       *Standpunkt/position besteht immer aus einer Menge von Kernaussagen
> (key aspect statements?), die durchaus auch in der Gruppe
> unterschiedlich bewertet werden:
> 
>       *Kernaussagen, die von allen Gruppenmitgliedern bejaht sind
> (klassischer Konsens),
>       *Kernaussagen, die von der Mehrheit bejaht und von niemand
> entschieden widersprochen werden (KonsenT)
>       *Kernaussagen, die von der Mehrheit bejaht und von einer Minderheit
> (entschieden) abgelehnt werden. Dazu sollte in der Dokumentation
> ausdrücklich gesagt werden, ob die Minderheit dennoch die
> Mehrheitsaussagen mit trägt (was der Normalfall sein sollte), oder ob
> das Minderheitsvotum als solches dokumentiert werden soll was
> natürlichlich als Kristallisationspunkt für spätere Entwicklungen
> wertvoll sein kann!
>       *Kernaussagen, die mehrheitlich abgelehnt werden. Dabei ist zu
> unterscheiden, ob es sich um einen Arbeitsentwurf handelt, wo die
> Ablehnung eine Überarbeitung nach sich zieht, um zu einer
> konsensfähigen Formulierung zu kommen.
>  Oder ob es sich um eine Kontraposition zu anderen Gruppen handelt,
> die deutlich betont werden soll.(Das wäre dann "Konsens in der
> Ablehnung").
> 
>       Natürlich ist Intention jeder Standpunktbildung (position forming),
> eine tragfähige Menge gemeinsamer Aussagen herauszuarbeiten. Aber ich
> sehe in jedem Politikfeld einzelne kritische Punkte, wo konträre
> Sichten durchaus ihre Berechtigung haben. Und man landet automatisch
> in Machtspielen oder in Selbstbetrug, wenn man diese so oder so
> wegbügelt! 
> 
>       Dass diese Sicht mMn zum Herausstellen von Kernaussagen und zu deren
> differenzierter Bewertung (5-wertig!?!) zwingt(!), sei hier nur für
> die Leser eingefügt, die die bisherige Diskussion über den
> qualifizierten Konsens nicht kennen. 
> 
>       Mir ist durchaus bewusst, dass sich der Trend zu einer solchen
> strukturierten Arbeitsweise nur mühsam durchsetzt. Aber mir scheint
> sonnenklar, dass alle die ebenso mühsamen Versuche mit dem "delegated
> voting" letztlich nur auf eine Transformation der repräsentativen
> Demokratie hinauslaufen - also untauglich zur Lösung der
> gesellschaftlichen Probleme sind... 
> 
>       Deshalb halte ich es für wichtig, die tiefere Strukturierung von
> Argumenten und Bewertungen von Anfang an in die internationale
> Diskussion einzubringen. 
> 
>       Was haltet ihr davon? 
> 
>       Gruß! 
> 
>       Wolfgang


marc said (in other thread):
> Michael Allan schrieb
> > I think it's possible to go very far indeed.  But I wonder if there's
> > a place in it for the particular kind of technology I work on, and the
> > personal concerns that I have?
> 
> What make you think that this might not be the case?
> As far as I know your concerns are tightly coupled to Votorola, aren't they?
> 
> > Those are the questions I ask in the
> > other thread.  Because if there *is* a place, then I would definitely
> > be willing to shoulder my share of the workload.  :-)
> 
> And as far as I understand in our discussion on the 'opinion formation' 
> thread we are very close to eachother, aren't we?
> 
> But I definitely want to learn more about your concerns and how you think 
> they can match with the ones of our working group and even all other 
> projects around...
> 
> Cheers
> Marc