Social Media for Social Change

Just two sides?

Posted on Wednesday, March 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am by Jethro in prototype | 4 Comments

Just two sides?

There is much talk about dialogue and ending partisanship but unless you actually jump in with those you disagree with you avoid the commons and destroy democracy.

4 Responses to “Just two sides?”

1. # On March 20th, 2009 at 4:22 pm Alie wrote:

   I completely agree. I think establishing a spectrum is pretty important to our project as a whole. Polarizing viewpoints is only going to reinforce the idea that one is ultimately right and the other is wrong. If we do that, no matter how polite and meaningful our discussions are, they are still not going to move forward or reach any kind of ultimate conclusion.

2. # On March 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pm Alie wrote:

   Actually, I think that polarizing is really only a problem depending on how we phrase what the discussion is to be about. For instance, if you ask, “Should we have pizza for breakfast this morning or not?” then everyone will have to pick a side because ultimately you have to make a decision: yes or no. One side wins and the other side loses.

   However, if you ask, “What should we have for breakfast?” you’re opening the discussion up to a multitude of possibilities and also increasing the chances that a decision can be made that doesn’t leave a portion of your participants satisfied but leaving the rest out in the cold. It’s also how we reach new and more creative solutions to problems, which I think should be a goal of our discussions.

3. # On March 20th, 2009 at 9:25 pm Hunter wrote:

   First off, pizza is always good for breakfast.

   Secondly, I think we need to think of this first test as just an experiment. If we find the voting to be something that doesn’t fit, than we can cut it. Perhaps we could have people argue their opposing stance on an issue and see how it turns out.

4. # On March 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm Ona wrote:

   If the question is “Should we have pizza for breakfast?” or “What should we have for breakfast?” Your going to get various answers depending on who your asking, and both questions could have interesting or lead to interesting results just because of how everyone is different. Unless you take into account how people decide things based on other people.
   However, I do agree with Allie about making the questions more open ended.
   But this is a pure example of our project. Jethro proposed a thought and now here we are making various statements about it and in a democratic respectful way.

   If people could “Think Before We Blog” and not ” Think therefore we blog” much like how we’ve managed here…

   *I am committing disrespect for not rereading this tho, I’m on a break and didn’t want to lose the thought, but have to go, so apologizing for any grammitcal/spelling errors