<p>I've been fascinated by this question for years, but unfortunately don't have a conclusive answer. So instead, I'll make an ad-hoc list of the things I've found/explored about this topic and hopefully this will give you a starting point until someone else can create a better answer with better references.</p>

<hr>

<p>My current approach to this is <a href="https://medium.com/@seanaubin/mind-maps-for-augmented-thinking-communication-24a7d949388d" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MindMaps</a>, which is similar to nodal network you propose. I've used Mindmaps in various scenarios, including trying to determine an <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3e4kGv2b1RAZXQ2blZpakZBQTA" rel="nofollow noreferrer">appropriate</a> <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3e4kGv2b1RAakJsaUgyNExPR28" rel="nofollow noreferrer">scope</a> <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3e4kGv2b1RAUklFVFNKdllVd2M/view?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">for this site</a>. However, I know of no formal study of this format of discussion and if it's better than linear forms of discussion as supported by forums.</p>

<p>Other models include <a href="https://hapgood.us/2014/11/06/federated-education-new-directions-in-digital-collaboration/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Federated Wikis</a>, which seems closer to your idea of an interconnected Wiki for discussion. However, these seems more targeted to spontaneous cross-fertilization of ideas, rather than debate. This is a new platform, so it's not surprising that there has been no formal study of the ideas that culminate from this form of digital interaction.</p>

<p>In terms of the content of documents, Bret Viktor has been investigating this and is trying to create a paradigm of <a href="http://worrydream.com/ExplorableExplanations/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Explorable Explorations</a>. Explorable Explanations rely on manipulable data-driven proofs rather than rhetoric based argumentation to prove their point. See the link for further examples. There is a collection of Explorable Explanations available online, which address a variety of topics, including CBT. However, I know of no evidence that these forms of explanations are more effective than traditional narrative-driven explanations.</p>

<p>Finally, to unify all of these approaches philosophically, Joe Edelman is putting forth <a href="https://medium.com/@edelwax/nothing-to-be-done-bfe2ce71a3a2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a philosophy</a> which dictates that shared values are the root of empathy and understanding. I know of no system that implements this philosophy of finding common values between participants, but it does seem like a useful framework to guide design.</p>

<hr>

<p>That's all I've found so far. I know lots of people doing research in Human Computer Interaction, but I've seen very little work in the domain of consensus building. I really hope further posters can provide superior references.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-03T17:32:36.993Z
FWIW, mind maps seem ambiguous to me.  When a line joins two bubbles, what does that mean?  Causality? Subsumption?  Containment? That one is a component of the other?  A temporal (but not causal) relationship?  I've seen cases used where ALL of these different relationships are conflated within the same mind map!  I wonder if mind maps may lead to "assumed consensus" ("false consensus effect" per Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect) where mind maps make you THINK they have enhanced communication, when in fact different people walk away with different impressions.
Syntax Junkie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-02T08:22:22.867Z
2017-04-02T08:22:22.867Z
Seanny123
<p>I was just thinking, if we as humans want to sort out our differences of opinion on, say, politics or religion, what would be a good means to debate such a concept while at the same time make everyone feel they're on board?</p>

<p>Most sites on such things are either:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Biased or unbiased (but usually persuasive) writings or studies that are written by a single individual or group (one way communication)</p></li>
<li><p>Organised Q&amp;A, forums, expert's opinion, etc. (two way communication, but often between those who have a good understanding and those who do not)</p></li>
<li>Unorganised and random chatting between fellow users (one to one communication, or group chatting within a small group/anonymous users)</li>
</ul>

<p>Has there been any research or thought given to the idea of a collective idea generating mechanism, where everybody provides their inputs, and is more likely to accept the results of such a debate (if results do come up)?</p>

<hr>

<p>Maybe a huge online wiki organised as a nodal network, where claims are supported or questioned. Evidence is put up on both sides, and further threads can be opened to debate the validity of given evidence. Bigger claims are made based on the validity of smaller claims, etc. etc. (But that's just my thoughts)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-01T11:25:18.380Z
I'm not sure how on-topic this question is. If it isn't, please let me know where it would be more valid.
ghosts_in_the_code
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-01T14:08:13.157Z
I don't think there is a particular StackExchange that's super on-topic for this, so I think it's fine here.
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-03T02:12:13.443Z
I should also mention that I don't consider this as "too broad" given that I have no idea how to cut the question into smaller manageable pieces. Suggestions how to split this question would be greatly appreciated.
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-10T16:19:57.547Z
I am currently working on exactly such a site ([Socratrees](http://socratrees.wiki)) and am mainly basing myself on Stack Exchange's community model and some reading into informal logic and existing tools out there supporting it. Also related is argumentation theory.
Steven Jeuris
<social-psychology><social-networks><sociology>
What kind of data structuring is conducive to healthy debate?
ghosts_in_the_code
# What kind of data structuring is conducive to healthy debate?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-01)

I was just thinking, if we as humans want to sort out our differences of opinion on, say, politics or religion, what would be a good means to debate such a concept while at the same time make everyone feel they're on board?

Most sites on such things are either:

* Biased or unbiased (but usually persuasive) writings or studies that are written by a single individual or group (one way communication)
* Organised Q&A, forums, expert's opinion, etc. (two way communication, but often between those who have a good understanding and those who do not)
* Unorganised and random chatting between fellow users (one to one communication, or group chatting within a small group/anonymous users)

Has there been any research or thought given to the idea of a collective idea generating mechanism, where everybody provides their inputs, and is more likely to accept the results of such a debate (if results do come up)?

---

Maybe a huge online wiki organised as a nodal network, where claims are supported or questioned. Evidence is put up on both sides, and further threads can be opened to debate the validity of given evidence. Bigger claims are made based on the validity of smaller claims, etc. etc. (But that's just my thoughts)

**Tags:** social-psychology, social-networks, sociology

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I'm not sure how on-topic this question is. If it isn't, please let me know where it would be more valid.  
> **username_1**: I don't think there is a particular StackExchange that's super on-topic for this, so I think it's fine here.  
> **username_1**: I should also mention that I don't consider this as "too broad" given that I have no idea how to cut the question into smaller manageable pieces. Suggestions how to split this question would be greatly appreciated.  
> **username_2**: I am currently working on exactly such a site ([Socratrees](http://socratrees.wiki)) and am mainly basing myself on Stack Exchange's community model and some reading into informal logic and existing tools out there supporting it. Also related is argumentation theory.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-04-02. Score: 2

I've been fascinated by this question for years, but unfortunately don't have a conclusive answer. So instead, I'll make an ad-hoc list of the things I've found/explored about this topic and hopefully this will give you a starting point until someone else can create a better answer with better references.

---

My current approach to this is [MindMaps](https://medium.com/@seanaubin/mind-maps-for-augmented-thinking-communication-24a7d949388d), which is similar to nodal network you propose. I've used Mindmaps in various scenarios, including trying to determine an [appropriate](https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3e4kGv2b1RAZXQ2blZpakZBQTA) [scope](https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3e4kGv2b1RAakJsaUgyNExPR28) [for this site](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3e4kGv2b1RAUklFVFNKdllVd2M/view?usp=sharing). However, I know of no formal study of this format of discussion and if it's better than linear forms of discussion as supported by forums.

Other models include [Federated Wikis](https://hapgood.us/2014/11/06/federated-education-new-directions-in-digital-collaboration/), which seems closer to your idea of an interconnected Wiki for discussion. However, these seems more targeted to spontaneous cross-fertilization of ideas, rather than debate. This is a new platform, so it's not surprising that there has been no formal study of the ideas that culminate from this form of digital interaction.

In terms of the content of documents, Bret Viktor has been investigating this and is trying to create a paradigm of [Explorable Explorations](http://worrydream.com/ExplorableExplanations/). Explorable Explanations rely on manipulable data-driven proofs rather than rhetoric based argumentation to prove their point. See the link for further examples. There is a collection of Explorable Explanations available online, which address a variety of topics, including CBT. However, I know of no evidence that these forms of explanations are more effective than traditional narrative-driven explanations.

Finally, to unify all of these approaches philosophically, Joe Edelman is putting forth [a philosophy](https://medium.com/@edelwax/nothing-to-be-done-bfe2ce71a3a2) which dictates that shared values are the root of empathy and understanding. I know of no system that implements this philosophy of finding common values between participants, but it does seem like a useful framework to guide design.

---

That's all I've found so far. I know lots of people doing research in Human Computer Interaction, but I've seen very little work in the domain of consensus building. I really hope further posters can provide superior references.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: FWIW, mind maps seem ambiguous to me.  When a line joins two bubbles, what does that mean?  Causality? Subsumption?  Containment? That one is a component of the other?  A temporal (but not causal) relationship?  I've seen cases used where ALL of these different relationships are conflated within the same mind map!  I wonder if mind maps may lead to "assumed consensus" ("false consensus effect" per Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect) where mind maps make you THINK they have enhanced communication, when in fact different people walk away with different impressions.  

---

