Government-Sponsored Disinformation: Combating the Trolls through Democratic Principles

Democracy’s Mighty Arsenal

To counter disinformation, let's extend the democratic principles of Wikipedia across platforms. We'll crowdsource cost-benefit analysis and conflict resolution, turning anger into constructive dialogue.

Fighting external trolls will also defeat our internal trolls and help us break Free from Bias

The following approach that links conclusion strength to evidence strength automagically destroys my-side bias and confirmation bias because it removes arguments from feelings and uses evidence to "weigh" conclusions:

Here's how:

1.       Isolating Each Belief: Evaluate each belief on its unique page, like Wikipedia, focusing on the evidence for and against it. This will keep the topic from changing.

2.       Linking Related Beliefs: Enhance collective understanding by analyzing interconnections between ideas and gauging their strengths and weaknesses. Putting similar ways of saying the same thing will allow us to reduce redundancy and truly have one page for each belief, not matter what language, dialect, or style is used to express it. We'll group similar expressions of ideas, assigning scores to determine their equivalency and identifying the "best" way to articulate them.

3.       Brainstorming Reasons: Participants are encouraged to explore reasons for both agreement and disagreement, fostering a well-rounded understanding of the issues.

4.       Pro/Con Analysis: Every conspiracy theory undergoes rigorous evaluation through a pro/con analysis, where the strength of supporting and opposing evidence is meticulously weighed, and bad arguments are not deleted, just moved to the bottom of the lists, so conspiracy theorist can see all the valid counterarguments, keeping their arguments and ultimately their belief from gaining traction. In a world where bad arguments don't help and can even hurt their cause, they will eventually run out of steam.

5.       Evidence Linking: The strength of each belief is tied directly to the robustness of the evidence, promoting transparency and honesty in our assessments.

6.       Identifying Logical Fallacies: We scrutinize information for logical fallacies and provide verification scores, grounding our plans in evidence.

7.       We will separate arguments by their type, to keep them separated (e.g., arguments about logical fallacies, verification or replication, importance, and linkage) 

The Path to a Stronger Future

With this robust approach to information evaluation, we pave the way for a brighter tomorrow. Collaboration becomes the driving force behind an enlightened society where democratic participation thrives.

So, let's steer our course with clarity, reason, and precision. We can neutralize disinformation, triumph over biased thinking, and lay the foundation for a new era of logical decision-making and societal unity. Let's forge ahead with a specific and actionable plan, embracing the power of collective intelligence to safeguard our democracy.

Just the facts, please

A widely accepted maxim of good decision-making is not mixing your values and facts. Once you have gathered all your facts, you can use your values to select between them. However, this is why lady justice uses a blindfold when determining the facts. That is the problem with Fox News and CNN. We don’t have different values now but different (so-called) facts. When discussing the world, we need to identify the facts without hopes, fears or fit the world into pre-written stories about how we are angels and those who disagree are stupid or evil. When designing an elevator, you might be afraid your new design is too weak, hoping it is much better. However, you must run tests to determine what its actual capacity is. Then you can use your values, which want you to have a significant safety factor, to make a statement about its maximum load. You wouldn’t start this process by selling the elevator without running a test to ensure its capacity is accurate and that you have a significant safety factor.

It is the same with evidence-based policy. First, we will conduct a process to identify each policy's most likely costs and benefits. Then we will use a separate process to identify and weigh the values and interests of each party within Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and identify to which degree each decision should be made by the most likely overall or specific costs, benefits, and the appropriate level of risk for each decision.

Politicians as avatars of our disfuction

We often perceive politicians as avatars for our personal beliefs and political ideologies, symbolizing ideas like "Make America Great Again" or representing big or small government concepts. These politicians personify catchy slogans, embodying concepts such as compassion, protection, fairness, authority, loyalty, and righteousness. When they triumph over our perceived rivals, we feel a vicarious victory. However, when we over-invest emotionally, we lose sight of the bigger picture.

We often see ourselves engaged in competitions of ideas, expecting politicians to champion our causes. Yet, we fail to acknowledge that our true adversaries are deeper issues—entropy, hatred, death, destruction, and the challenges posed by other nations. We're competing to follow the path of wisdom, to make sound decisions, and to outdo authoritarian governments trying to outcompete us. In many sectors, such as education, they're already surpassing us.

We've turned politics into a bitter, revenge-filled contest, a zero-sum game where the winner takes all. Fueled by mistrust, past grievances, and blind beliefs, we focus on defeating the other side rather than tackling our vulnerabilities and responsibly handling power.

We need to abandon our obsessive pursuit of power, entrusting it to an evidence-based process. I'm not suggesting giving power to our enemies, but advocating that we stop the fight and rely on a process driven by evidence.

Many of us haven't yet fully grasped how scientific inquiry, effective altruism, cost-benefit analysis, conflict resolution, and other decision hygiene processes can bypass politics, personal beliefs, and intuitions. We haven't realized that these processes can help overcome problems for those willing to follow the evidence.

Our current perception of politics and politicians is distorted. Politics should not incite emotional tension but should be about evaluating and measuring potential costs and benefits based on past observations. It should not be about rigid philosophies of big or small government, nor about winning battles at all costs. There are countless examples of big and small governments failing due to corruption, inefficiency, and many other problems.

We must learn to use our minds more effectively, akin to a multifunctional tool that can weigh different options, rather than a weapon that fuels hatred. Our institutions should guide us toward rationality, impartiality, and wisdom, much like the symbols of Lady Justice and Athena. We should not approach politics with the mentality of wrestling fans, cheering for one side and demonizing the other.

Our founding fathers, such as George Washington and John Adams, discouraged political parties, understanding the danger of being caught up in personalities and the destructive cycle of winning or losing. They advocated for decision hygiene, for making choices based on careful consideration rather than bias.

Abraham Lincoln wisely noted that as a nation of freemen, we are either destined to live forever or die by our own hands. This realization prompts us to consider whether we need to reevaluate our political structures, create new political parties that are better at solving problems, or risk being surpassed by other nations.

We need a political party that doesn't merely promote dogmas or indulges in partisan biases. We need a party that uses collective intelligence to make mature and rational decisions that can balance the valid interests of both liberals and conservatives. We must stop demonizing the other side and encourage dialogue, respect, and discussion. We need political parties that are dedicated not just to winning but to showcasing the strongest arguments on various issues.

To reiterate, the world is more complex than it seems. No single ideology or set of ideas can solve all our problems. We need a forum that ties the strength of our beliefs to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Suppose you're willing to engage in rational problem-solving. In that case, the notion of a political party that puts ideas through cost-benefit analysis, conflict resolution, and logical forums may be a promising direction to explore.

Automated Reason Promotion: Algorithms to automate conflict resolution, cost-benefit analysis, and verification of logic and evidence

Algorithms to automate conflict resolution, cost-benefit analysis, and weighing of logic and evidence
1) Introduction

In this modern era, we could look up nearly anything online, with unprecedented access to information in human history. However, as we wade through this vast ocean of data, it's clear that having information doesn't necessarily translate into wisdom.

An apt parallel is the attempt to institute democracy in Iraq by simply introducing voting. The lack of established institutions employing effective processes or algorithms to support a democratic framework illustrated how complex systems require more than one component to function optimally. Similarly, our information society needs to incorporate better processes or algorithms to manage and benefit from the wealth of knowledge we've amassed.

The internet can often resemble an unfathomable maze filled with echo chambers, from fervent supporters of fringe theories to intense political enthusiasts. In this complex network, we simultaneously enjoy access to cutting-edge data from engineering marvels like the James Webb Telescope and grapple with discerning information from a flood of half-truths and outright falsehoods.

This book aims to confront this dilemma head-on by introducing a pioneering online system to enable more informed and comprehensive decision-making. We can promote a more balanced and nuanced discourse by gathering, classifying, and ranking the most compelling arguments for and against any given belief or decision. We envision a digital space where ideas are not merely exchanged but systematically evaluated—where the most convincing and relevant arguments rise above the cacophony.

By adopting such a system, we can potentially transform the dynamics of debate and decision-making, creating a ripple effect that could improve democratic processes and lead to a more enlightened society. We invite you to join us in exploring a revolutionary concept, seeking to bring clarity and critical thinking to our decision-making processes in this era of information overload.
2) Wisdom of the Ages

Imagine a digital world modeled after Lady Justice. In Western lore, she deftly balances the scales of fair debate and wears a blindfold representing objectivity. But this idea of judicious discourse wasn't unique to the West. In ancient Egypt, Maat, the goddess of wisdom, also held a scale, weighing the manifold aspects of each issue.

Athena, the Greek goddess of both reason and war, offered two paths to resolving conflict: engaging in intellectual debates, where logic ruled, or resorting to the chaos of war, laden with death, destruction, and manipulation.

Historically, societies prospered when they upheld reasoning, avoided bias, and fostered logic. In contrast, societies tumbled into chaos when they shunned reasoned discourse in favor of one-sided arguments or war. In our digital age, abundant with information, we've somehow misplaced the wisdom of the ages.

Undoubtedly, we've learned myriad lessons from those times. But has the method or quality of debate truly evolved? Would the wise ones of the past approve of how we debate today? How do we pick our sides, filter our news, and subscribe to our preferred media echo chambers?

These platforms – Facebook, Twitter, and others – are our modern-day debating arenas. But do they measure up to the intellectual rigor of our ancestors' debates? As we grapple with an increasingly complex, interconnected world, can we genuinely progress if our discourse fails to rise to the occasion?

Faced with this significant challenge, we must seek to infuse our online spaces with the spirit of Lady Justice and Maat. This is not about recreating ancient debates but about aspiring to their intellectual rigor, the respectful exchange of ideas, and a commitment to truth. It’s about fostering an environment that encourages balanced, unbiased discourse amidst the deafening din of one-sided narratives. Only then can we hope to navigate the labyrinth of modern-day issues with the wisdom and justice that the ancients would deem worthy?

A Recipe for Prosperity: American Philosophy Simplified

In the U.S., our philosophy of prosperity is relatively straightforward. Here it is broken down:

1. Everyone's financial security relies on an abundance of resources.
2. This abundance depends on hardworking and efficient production.
3. High-energy, willing, and enthusiastic workers drive this production.
4. But people need a reason to work hard — they need an incentive.
5. The most effective incentive for most people is the freedom to enjoy the results of their hard work, often referred to as the 'profit motive.' It's simply the right to plan, earn, and relish the benefits of your labor.
6. However, as government controls, regulations, and taxes increase, they can curb this profit motive by denying people the total rewards of their success.
7. Consequently, any government intervention aimed at redistributing the fruits of labor can ultimately erode society's productive base. Without this base, true abundance and security become unattainable for anyone beyond the ruling elite. 

So, less government intervention, more freedom to enjoy the results of our labor, and respect for the productive base of society seem to be the secret ingredients to America's recipe for prosperity.

The Double-Edged Sword of Compassion: Balancing Care and Consequence

Being compassionate is a fundamental human trait we all cherish. However, we must also understand that even the best of intentions can lead to unanticipated outcomes. For instance, the idea of the welfare state, born from empathy and a desire to support those in need, has faced criticism. Some argue that it might unintentionally interfere with the 'survival of the fittest,' diminishing individuals' need to build trustful relationships with friends and family for support. This isn't an argument against compassion but a call to be mindful of the unexpected effects and find a balance promoting societal help and individual strength.

In philosophical and logical debates, the slippery slope technique often faces scrutiny. This method takes an idea to its extreme, shows the ridiculousness of this exaggerated scenario, and then uses it to refute the original idea. The allure of this method is obvious—it's easier to disprove an outlandish idea than to challenge a balanced one. However, it's crucial to remember that this doesn't necessarily undermine the original thought. If we aim to have substantial debates, we must confront real, complex ideas without simplifying them.

Here are the pros and cons I've observed:

Pros:

1. Compassion encourages community building and mutual support.
2. The welfare state offers crucial aid to the needy.
3. The slippery slope argument helps test an idea's potential extremes.

Cons:

1. The welfare state might inadvertently discourage personal initiative and resilience.
2. Unguided compassion can lead to unexpected adverse effects.
3. The slippery slope argument might oversimplify and misrepresent complex ideas.

• The strength or weakness of this belief can be demonstrated through evidence-based studies showing the impact of the welfare state on individual motivation and resilience, as well as philosophical discourses on the pros and cons of the slippery slope argument.

To be considered knowledgeable about this topic, you should familiarize yourself with these resources:

• Books: "The Welfare State We're In" by James Bartholomew, "Compassion: A Reflection on the Christian Life" by Henri Nouwen.
• Articles: "The Unintended Consequences of Welfare Spending" (Journal of Economic Perspectives), "The Slippery Slope Argument" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
• Debates: Welfare state debates from Oxford Union or Intelligence Squared Debates.
• Lectures: Online philosophy and welfare economics courses from platforms like Coursera, edX, etc.

• Shared values with potential dissenters include the belief in human dignity, the need for societal support, and the importance of critical thinking in decision-making.
• Key differences between agreeing and disagreeing parties lie in their understanding of individual responsibility, the role of the state, and the interpretation of logical fallacies.
• To reject this belief, one might also need to reject the principle that all actions, even well-intentioned ones, can have unintended consequences and the fundamental understanding of the slippery slope argument.
• Strategies for encouraging dialogue include moderated debates, open forums, respect for opposing viewpoints, and utilization of tools like fact-checking and evidence grading.
• Alternative expressions of this belief could include #BalancedCompassion, #BeyondSlipperySlope, "Compassion with caution," and "Challenge ideas, not caricatures."

In terms of supporting arguments and evidence:

1. The logical arguments used here are a mixture of deductive (If A, then B) and inductive (specific observations to general conclusions) reasoning.
2. A study on Google Scholar titled "The Welfare Trap: The Unintended Consequences of the Welfare State" can provide some empirical evidence. 
3. The book "Slippery Slope Arguments" by Douglas Walton presents an in-depth exploration of this logical fallacy.
4. TED Talks like "The Power of Vulnerability" by Brené Brown or "The Danger of a Single Story" by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie can provide supporting video content.
5. The Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu) is a reputable source of research and analysis on welfare state policy.
6. The Philosophy Bites podcast often covers related topics.
7. Experts like philosopher Daniel Dennett and economist Thomas Sowell provide balanced perspectives.
8. The belief's acceptance benefits could align with Maslow's categories, such as providing safety (welfare state) and self-actualization (engaging in critical, nuanced thinking).
9. Ethics used to justify this belief could be consequentialism (judging actions by their outcomes) and critical thinking ethics (prioritizing logical, balanced arguments). To oppose it, one might employ deontological ethics (focusing on the action, not the consequence) or dismiss the validity of specific logical arguments.

Let's remember: even compassion can have unforeseen results. The fact that the welfare state might have affected the survival of the fittest isn't about being politically correct; it's about considering the full picture. And yes, using the slippery slope to dismiss ideas by making them seem absurd is tempting. But we'd do well to challenge the complex, tangible ideas that people hold rather than simplify them for the sake of a more straightforward argument. 

Can this tool confirm the truth of the Mormon Church?

No, this tool isn't a magical device. It doesn't have the power to reveal eternal truths or grant wishes. People often get upset when their beliefs are scrutinized. They feel entitled to their beliefs but argue to justify their conclusions. Like everyone else, I have the right to seek the truth. However, I aim to do it systematically. It is uninteresting and invalid to draw a conclusion and only list supporting arguments. That's why I include reasons to agree and disagree. People dislike having a score for each conclusion. It provokes them intensely. Yet, we all have internal scores. Is keeping these scores in our minds more offensive or exposing them to public scrutiny? Is it more offensive to draw conclusions without considering the quantity and quality of supporting evidence, or is it better to follow the evidence? The only way to follow the evidence is for both sides to set aside their pride, sit together, and brainstorm reasons to agree and disagree with each conclusion. But remember, the scores don't mean anything beyond the value you assign to them. As more people use the document, the scores will evolve over time. Google uses an algorithm to rank web pages by counting the number of links to a page. If we want to progress as a species, we must accept that computers can count arguments like Google counts links. You must accept that to promote a belief, you must appeal to logic and present your case transparently and openly.

This is the tool: 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AMxQF9S3MIniwlivr4KBp48pQTiCWoUslZy7gmzg-Ho/edit?usp=sharing