RE: TAKE PART IN AN ON-GOING EXPERIMENT! Systemic Consensus - How can people better participate in democratic processes?
Why didn't I come across this article when @agmoore tagged me three weeks ago... I'm very intrigued by the idea and had never heard about it. It is definitely true that people's opinion more often lie on a spectrum rather than having one exclusive thought. Politics and food are indeed great examples of that. But while I do believe this principle could be very practical in situations where for example a neighborhood has to decide on the outcome of a new building project near their houses or any other referenda, I'm afraid that in national elections people are guided by ideological principles rather than rational choice and are much more likely to vote selfishly. But maybe a practical experiment on such a scale could prove this otherwise.
In case still want to publish the results, here are my resistances:
- = 3
- = 9
- = 2
- = 2
- = 9
- = 5
- = 4
- = 7
- = 7
- = 1
- = 10
- = 7
- = 4
Thank you for participating! I will include your results in my table. I had hoped for some of this and would have liked to do the result evaluation. Maybe the topic was too difficult and I should have offered something easier. But I can extend it and animate a participation every now and then, until I have collected enough data. It doesn't run away. If you still know someone who would join in, I would be happy if you refer him to this article. So yes, it won't be lost and I will continue to maintain it.
I see you have grasped the idea and its potential. Yes, it's indeed a spectrum and bandwidth method that doesn't work in absolute categories, although it does include that, but at the same time the nuances.
I believe that people behave according to the set framework and always as wisely or as stupidly as the framework allows them to and believes they can. As in the Jerusalem game. People are naturally inclined to feed their dark shadows less if they are inspired and involved.
I am confident that a practical experiment can indeed prove the opposite and that people will not stick to their ideologies alone when they get the whole spectrum opened up and not just a road pointing left or right. Moreover, I believe that such must be repeatedly inserted into the personal space of experience so that the repeated participatory experience can establish a good impact.
You may think that the following has nothing to do with this topic but I think it has. I copy a comment of mine given this morning to another user in here:
I hope you'll get to the results eventually, I'm curious to see what comes out!
I also really like the quotation! It's a beautifully written analogy, truly something to think about. What was the context of that story? I have read it a few times over already but I still feel the need to read it just one more time.
Me, too. I hope, I will collect some more data.
The context of that story is a dialogue with a steemit friend and a struggle with anger. I wanted to show to him that anger is not something which someone brings upon us but something we create in ourselves as something we identify with. Once anger dominates us emotionally we fail to see that what we expect from others - to be good and insightful - they expect from us as well. If both expectations stay unchanged cooperation and peace is hard to find. One can be willing to change this habit and make oneself having experiences of better kinds to find positivity in human relationships. It also pays into decision making processes. If the framework and rules are altered, it often changes the mindsets as well.
Nicely written, I think it's a great way of viewing the world. I think people quickly run the risk of retreating in their own little world of emotions. But by telling it in a more abstract story really let's you think about it.
Posted using Partiko Android