I think this is a really nice idea on paper, but I'm unsure about how it will actually work out. We have a tendency to vilify those who don't share our views and because of this there is a serious chance from this discovery source being impossible to stomach due to massive insults and gross over-assumptions.
no plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- I think the point-counterpoint type of debate has worked before, though. A lot would come down to implementation. I rather like how Amazon does the "The most helpful favourable review" vs. "The most helpful critical review" thing.May 18, 2012
- Think back to the last few political debates you've watch, Canadian or American, and tell me with a straight face that point-counterpoint debate works for political issues. It still gets way too heated and way too personal.May 18, 2012
- I don't watch televised political debates any more because I've found neither side of the dominant two parties frequently talks about issues I actually care about (usually they go un-debated), and then, typically the one who I think should win rarely does because first past the post is a horribly broken system in races where there's > 2 candidates.
That being said, I've found it does work well for financial issues/advice. I do also think there's a lot of value to be had in getting differing perspectives, and some books that do it well are, for example: The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University, and chapters of AJ Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible (where he talks to people with far more literal interpretations than his own).May 18, 2012
- I agree with all your examples. I think the project they are describing would be a lot more successful if they started there and worked up towards political topics. But they said they are starting with politics which is is akin to starting a toddler off crawling by setting them down on their feet and watching what happens.May 18, 2012