The aim of this document is to identify a simple ordered system of thought/discussion by which debates and questions that relate to the shaping of society can be optimally approached - a system that could be referred to as ‘best practice’ in the debate/political forum.
An example of a pre-’CO-System’ debate:
I recently watched a debate about immigration on a fairly respected TV show which was carried out in a format typical of most televised political, and classroom debates - i.e. a question is posed (in this case, “Has Immigration Made Britain Better?”), then a central speaker gives time to proponents and opponents, and finally a more general discussion is mediated.
What I noticed about this debate, which was in no way unusual, was how quickly it turned into an unconstructive argument about issues which were fundamentally unresolvable. For example one side argued that immigration was a good thing because it had brought new culture and new ways of thinking to areas of Britain, whereas the other side argued that British culture was being pushed aside and that people were losing their national identity. However at no point did either party stop and say, “hey, we’re going to keep arguing about this because my notion of ‘good’ is a dilution of the local culture whereas your notion of it is a strengthening of local culture” or visa versa. Instead, the two sides just presented more and more statistics in support of their own case, feeling that they had said something conclusive, when in fact they had only presented more evidence to antagonise the goals of their opponent.
Thoughts on the problem:
Here are some things that an improved system would include:
- It should provide a mechanism by which the irreconcilable differences in people’s stances are actively sought, and stated, rather than having people focusing straight on the evidence that supports their point of view.
- If an argument is going to arise then it should arise solely based on those irreconcilable differences, and not on a frustration due to the mangling of facts. Which leads to….
- It should be more categorical about points reached in the debate. I.e. ‘if we can’t reconcile this difference then we’re going to argue, and I’m going to end up beating you down’. Or ‘can we compromise? If so, then we can solve this.’
At their core these are all mathematical logic problems. If were to program a computer to solve a problem about society for us then we would
- give it all the information we had
- tell it what people’s stances were
- tell it how much people would be willing to compromise
Then the computer would try to find the best compromise based on the information available. If no compromise could be reached then the computer would say something like, ‘problem unsolvable, people are going to be enraged by each other no matter what’. ‘Here’s a solution that offends the least amount of people. But expect anger.’
And then the people who carried out the computer’s wishes couldn’t really be blamed for any oppression inflicted on those who were against the changes, because they were simply minimising the anger.
But we don’t, in general, argue like that at the moment. I’m sure many people are very rational and try not to get into irrational arguments, but it would still be nice to have a formal system that we can refer to as the optimal method for arguing, so that when two people are having an argument that’s descending into chaos one of them can say, ‘Stop! We’re not applying optimal protocol!’; something that everyone can agree is a completely rational means for having a debate, before they’ve decided to hate each other.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Collective Objective Algorithm
The ‘Collective Objective Algorithm’ is a proposal for such a formal protocol of debates. It goes as follows:
- A speaker states an issue which is known to have divided people.
- Prior to any debate, statistics on the subject from sources which all parties trust and agree to be reliable are brought forward. If either party doubts the sources of the information then the debate is oppressed (See end).
- The proponents of each side are asked to describe their vision of an ideal society, with particular emphasis on the role that the issue at hand plays. The goal of this stage is to assess how the preferences of each side fundamentally differ in the absence of the current state of affairs. If anyone’s ideal society depends on a statistical claim which can be proved then that claim must be proved or else the debate will be oppressed .
- Everyone identifies what their unresolvable differences are and begin to discuss a ‘collective objective’, a compromised ideal society. This collective objective does not need to be completely mapped out but rather discussed to a point where all parties feel that their side is being fairly taken into account by the others. If no collective objective can be reached then the motion is oppressed.
- Once a collective objective has been reached all parties analyse the statistical information they have at hand, so that they may decide on a course of action to steer society towards it.
OPPRESSED: The debate is essentially over because it has reached a point at which no more mutual analysis or fair decisions can be made, and ultimately the weakest members will end up oppressed by the strongest.
N.B. In the case of politics, where decisions must be made based on the outcome of the argument, an absence of solid information can lead to an oppressed debate, which would mean that the party with the most power will inevitably force their way. At this point the opposition may make an emotional appeal, or reinforce their side of the argument, but either way the moderator should state that oppression has been reached and that the decision is being made without mutual acceptance.
Of course, in reality, a debate can occur between an individual who is educated in the statistics of the topic and one who is not and, since a thorough education in the statistics may take much more time than the debate deserves, a point of oppression may be quickly reached. In such a case we can only hope that the party who is 'oppressing' is doing so in everyone's best interests.
