http://truthmapping.com/about.php

Limitations Overcome by TruthMapping.com
Context: Traditional methods of discussion including e-mail, message boards and conversation involve back and forth interactions that necessarily lead one away from the original argument. What typically remains are meandering sub-discussions and often the original points are forgotten entirely.

The TruthMapping.com solution is to make participant interaction always point inward, back toward the argument itself; the argument is the context which can not be escaped.


Content to Noise: Discussions most often consist of two distinct phases that are treated the same within traditional methods. The first phase consists of the back and forth between participants where each is simply trying to understand what the other is attempting to express. The second phase is the actual "Aha!" moment or distillation of what the true disagreement is. While the back and forth phase is essential to get the "Aha!" moment it is only the true disagreement that is fundamental to the discussion. Since there is no distinction between these phases in traditional methods, the true content is buried amid a lot of noise which forces participants to attempt to remember all relevant parts of the discussion while ignoring the less relevant.

The TruthMapping.com solution is to reveal only the "Aha!" moments (the final drafts of each person's position) while all earlier positions are automatically archived. Since each such critique/rebuttal conversation relates to a very distinct point within the topic this revision process leaves a very content rich view of a discussion since the noise is hidden.


Digression: Because of the lack of context of standard methods of discussion, digression frequently occurs both unintentionally and intentionally. Unintentional digression is to be expected within a context free method. Intentional digression occurs often in response to a valid criticism of a position in an attempt to distract other participants from such information and to bury such information amid other contributions. Both forms of digression are fundamentally detrimental to correct understanding.

The TruthMapping.com solution is to break the argument down to its component parts where any critique is always directed against a very specific point in the argument so that any attempt to digress is apparent to everyone.


Time Commitment: Because of the outward flow of information in traditional methods there is a distinct advantage in making as many contributions as possible because you know that when you stop contributing your adversary will be standing on the soapbox alone. This often intense time requirement can dissuade many persons who have great thoughts to share from participating.

TruthMapping.com solves this by turning the discussion paradigm on its head through the combination of an explicit context and the use of revisions of critiques and rebuttals which focus the discussion inward toward the argument. This results in the ability of a critic to make a single, highly visible, devastating critique that the defender of the argument can not hide regardless of how prolific they are.


Hidden Assumptions: Typical discussions often contain implicit assumptions that many people overlook.

The TruthMapping.com solution is to expose all assumptions explicitly.

The TruthMapping method is patent pending.


The goal of TruthMapping.com is simply to elevate the level of public discourse. We hope that you enjoy this free service.



Very interesting.

http://truthmapping.com/about.php

no

.

Very interesting, if it can be optimized I think it could be a brilliant idea.

How do we define truth? It would be good for certain discussions.

It is a great idea. However, I wonder how vulnerable the arguments are to attack by trolls and idiots.

Ugh. I had to stop watching that video. I had to.

Not only is that the geekiest thing on the internet, and therefore the geekiest thing ever, but it smells of schoolteachers.

it is a site for persons who believe that reasoning should be at the heart of public debate
Ah, right. It's not, therefore, I take it, for those who believe that Auntie Betty's crusty spamhead should be at the heart of the debate?
Since there is no distinction between these phases in traditional methods, the true content is buried amid a lot of noise which forces participants to attempt to remember all relevant parts of the discussion while ignoring the less relevant.
Cum on feel the noize. Truthmapping.com... must be destroyed!

http://truthmapping.com/about.php
Boriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!!! :bugeye:


PS: I like the junk... :p

too cluttered.