TED Conversations

griffin tucker

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can technology help with unconstructive arguments?

i believe that all misunderstandings simply come down to a clash between either a belief or a personality.

would technology be able to help guide conversations with people to prevent such clashes from occurring, by, for instance, only displaying common traits between people to keep conversations on the side of being positive and constuctive?

Topics: arguments constructive criticism evolutionary psychology moral psychology political psychology psychology war
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • Connor McCall

    • 0
    Jun 22 2011: Using technology to bring people with different viewpoints together is one thing, but keeping it from turning ugly is another thing entirely. Some people interpret disagreements as being told they're wrong, and react aggressively; other people put their points forward without concession, and are then viewed as either rude or foolish.

    In the end, the etiquette required to have such a discussion is an acquired skill. Using technology to help teach that might be a good step, though.
    • thumb

      griffin tucker 10+

      • 0
      Jun 24 2011: you raise an interesting point that technology should be used to teach a skill for dealing with dispute resolvement, but it doesn't really seem feasible to me because some people would not have the opportunity to learn such a skill, and some people choose not to use the skill also.

      in terms of the internet, there is a lot of people who choose to 'troll,' for example, and this kind of forum i've mentioned would almost erase the intentions of trolls, but at the same time still give the person who would normally troll an opportunity to give their views.

      an obvious marker of this kind of forum, being anonymous, would be false viewpoints. i believe this is an advantage. whatever a human can think of, could be used as a possible outcome of an idea. the forum would not be some kind of popularity contest.
    • thumb

      griffin tucker 10+

      • 0
      Jun 30 2011: i could be reading into what you're saying too much, @Connor McCall, and anyone is free to answer this, but do I come across as egotistical? perhaps I need to work on my attitude...
  • thumb

    Dain Brammage

    • 0
    Jun 22 2011: Running on your example.

    Only displaying the common traits could end up being like preaching to the choir. But then again the uncommon traits could end up bleeding through and then the purpose would be defeated.

    The problem with misunderstandings is the misunderstanding itself, it is when an individual either feels superior, threatened or just acting pig-headed and they refuse to try to understand. It is not the act, it is the intention.
    • thumb

      griffin tucker 10+

      • 0
      Jun 24 2011: i suppose that if real names were used in such a forum as i suggested earlier, it would not function positively if other mediums were used to communicate.

      what i'm suggesting is an anonymous forum that is purely focused on positive construction on a particular (any) topic, where the technology automates with little bias and little human interaction to keep the focus on a particular topic, if the input from the user can relate one topic to another on a particular topic, it could act as a self-contained and self-evolving network of ideas.

      essentially an idea bank similar to micro torrent's website for it's client, only on a larger scale.

      i believe that if the intention is simply removed on such a website forum, and simply note the opposition of the belief, and then use other information in the user's input to stretch out the network of ideas, it could benefit humanity.
  • thumb

    griffin tucker 10+

    • 0
    Jun 22 2011: what if a kind of forum was set up that did such a thing? would it be successful?

    here's an idea for you, google.
Showing all 6 comments