Business Partnerships with Schools

Schools should actively seek partnerships with businesses, embracing the competitive virtues of the marketplace. Much of the world's knowledge resides within businesses, creating a mutual opportunity for learning and growth. By fostering this collaboration, both schools and businesses stand to gain substantially.

Mutual Benefits:

Businesses could benefit from cooperating with schools through various rights, including:

• Bragging Rights: Associating with educational institutions and contributing to the community.
• Advertisement Rights: Gaining visibility and brand recognition through school collaborations.
• Recruiting Rights: Access to young talents, potentially nurturing future employees.

Students, in turn, need to understand that their future may likely involve fitting into a business atmosphere. Business leaders could provide encouragement, mentorship, and real-world insights to help students pursue better education and career paths.

Teachers, too, must become familiar with the business world, ensuring that their knowledge remains current and applicable.

Proposed Collaborations:

• Community Involvement: Schools should invite business professionals from the community to teach classes, regardless of whether they hold a teaching certificate.
• Exchange Programs: Establish an exchange system where teachers spend time working within businesses, and business professionals come to schools to teach. This mutual exchange of experience and expertise enriches both sides.

Advertising and Sponsorship:

Let businesses advertise on anything that they donate, such as:

• Paper, Pencils, Chairs, Computers.
• Maintain a wish list of items that the school needs, providing businesses with clear opportunities for involvement.

This collaboration between schools and businesses is not just a matter of mutual benefit. It is a forward-thinking approach that recognizes the increasingly interconnected roles of education and industry. By bridging these worlds, we can create richer learning environments, foster community involvement, and better prepare our students for the future that awaits them.

Uniting Minds: Breaking the Chains of Fragmented Discourse

In the grand arena of collective thought, true unity remains elusive while we persist in the labyrinth of countless fragmented conversations. How can we forge a path to genuine cohesion when caught in a cacophony of isolated discussions? To dismantle this dissonance, we must embark on a journey that transcends the limitations of single conversations and scattered musings.

The Unveiling of Harmony: Synthesizing Collective Discourse

The resolution to this intricate puzzle lies in our ability to weave together the intricate threads of discourse that have woven their way through the tapestry of our digital age. It's not enough to merely acknowledge the shared sentiments dispersed across myriad platforms; a symphony of voices yearns for a conductor to orchestrate their harmonious convergence.

A Convergence of Voices: Bridging the Chasms

Imagine a grand assembly where every voice and perspective finds its rightful place. The solution? We must gather the multitude of conversations wherein kindred thoughts resonate—where echoes of the same sentiment reverberate across the digital expanse. These fragments, once disparate and disconnected, shall unite under a common banner, revealing the hidden strength of collective coherence.

From Chaos to Clarity: Unmasking the Power of Agreement

But unity is not born solely from agreement; it thrives in the crucible of conflicting viewpoints, where the flames of truth forge the strongest of alliances. Within these hallowed halls of unified thought, we gather congruent expressions and summon the arguments that bolster or challenge them. Through this alchemical fusion, our collective understanding emerges refined and resolute.

Supporting and Challenging: A Dance of Intellectual Vigor

The battleground of ideas beckons us to marshal supporting and contradicting arguments in a captivating dance. In the interplay of evidence and dissent, we uncover the essence of robust debate. In this intricate choreography, the strength of conviction intertwines with the willingness to challenge, birthing a more profound appreciation for the complex tapestry of human thought.

The Dawn of Unity: Crafting Consensus from Chaos

The emergence of consensus from the chaotic symphony of voices is no small feat. This convergence requires a delicate balance of intellectual rigor, open-mindedness, and a commitment to embracing the bonds that unite us. Through the crucible of shared arguments and diverse perspectives, we can refine our understanding, fortify our convictions, and emerge as a united front against the tides of discord.

In this pursuit of unity, let us not falter in the face of complexity. Let us embrace the challenge of synthesizing thoughts, harnessing the power of technology to weave the disparate threads of discourse into a tapestry of collective wisdom. The road ahead is not one of ease. Still, it is one of immeasurable potential—a journey towards a realm where understanding transcends fragmentation and where the symphony of human thought rises to a crescendo of unity.

🎙️ Listen to more insights on my podcast: Unveiling Unity 

🌐 Join the conversation on our site: www.groupintel.org 

💻 Dive into the code that empowers unity: GitHub Repository

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

We need a blend of liberal and conservative approaches in politics and life.

There's an urgent need for honest dialogue between liberals and conservatives. The goal should not be the "defeat" of the opposing side, as those on the other side could just as easily be us, given different experiences. We need a blend of liberal and conservative approaches in politics and life.

In the words of Jimmy Carter (1977), "We can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems. We cannot afford to do everything, nor can we afford to lack boldness as we meet the future." This sentiment is crucial to our government, which needs to be both competent and compassionate.

While liberals often advocate for measures that can be perceived as punishing good behavior and rewarding bad behavior, we must remember that compassion and fairness are also important. We need to ensure a level playing field. However, blind pursuit of equality of outcome has proven to be unrealistic and destructive to competition and competency.

Indeed, we need liberals. The swift pace of technological advancement calls for an adaptable society, one that is ready to cast off outdated norms. For instance, when a conservative government in Australia hampered the country's internet development, partially due to lobbying by their sponsor, Fox, it was a setback. The United States' strength lies in its innovative spirit and readiness to leave outdated traditions behind.

The Senate's inability to effectively regulate new technologies like Facebook demonstrates what happens when the government becomes too conservative or outdated. Our digital society is moving at a pace that outstrips our ability to adapt.

Despite the necessity for change, conservatism plays a vital role too. Many utopian visions end up as disasters because most ideas don't work out. Society has limitations set by physical laws and historical legacies. A functional society is, in many ways, a miracle to our ancestors. That said, it is unwise to discard a system that sort of works.

Many lives veer off track, many businesses fail, but that doesn't mean we should punish hard work or reward laziness. The imbalance in cities like San Francisco, which lean heavily liberal, underscores this point.

It's essential to understand that life isn't always fair, but at some point, we must accept enough responsibility for our futures. If all conservative ideas were banned, we risk falling into the trap of victimhood and endless complaints about unfairness.

Liberals and conservatives both hold essential truths. Liberals drive societal improvements, but without conservatives' caution, they could lead society astray. Conservatives resist change and uphold tradition, but without liberal prodding, society might stagnate.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan aptly said, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."

Our need is for judges and scientists who can balance multiple truths, not for missionaries who disseminate isolated truths. Unless we can incorporate our truths into the wider world of facts, they are merely propaganda. A concept is only valid if it can be integrated, without contradiction, into the sum of human knowledge.

Russia doesn't require Ukraine as a part of a so-called "defensive" perimeter or sphere of influence. This viewpoint needs to be reframed, as it lacks credibility.

Analyzing Deductively: When a country is not under threat, it doesn't necessitate a defensive perimeter. Russia, which has no substantial threat against it, therefore, doesn't require such a perimeter. The country's vast nuclear arsenal, totaling 6,257 weapons, renders traditional land defenses almost irrelevant. Any idea of invading a nuclear superpower is universally recognized as untenable.

Prior to Russia's invasions of Georgia in 2008 and the annexation of Crimea in 2014, no entity was threatening Russia. The post-Cold War era signaled a pivotal change in relations between Russia and Western countries, particularly those in the European Union and North America. During this period, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) undertook several initiatives to reduce tensions and foster a cooperative relationship with Russia, such as joint military exercises, information sharing, and collaboration in areas like counter-terrorism and disaster response.

Historically, NATO, being a defensive alliance, does not pose a legitimate threat to Russia. The organization's strength lies in defense, not aggression, unless the aim is to exploit perceived threats to justify hostility against neighboring states. Every nation should have the right to choose its alliances freely, without facing dominance, control, or harm from others due to these choices.

Any assertion of feeling "threatened" should be based on credible factors, not subjective interpretations. Allowing nations to feel threatened without substantial justification could lead to a counterargument that even the mere existence of Russia is a "threat" to NATO.

There's a crucial distinction between nations voluntarily choosing to join NATO and NATO forcibly or aggressively promoting its eastward expansion. Joining any alliance, including NATO, is an exercise of sovereignty for nations, driven by their shared values and aspirations for collective security. If NATO were to forcefully extend its influence eastward without the free consent of the countries involved, it would challenge the fundamental principle of autonomy and self-determination.

Ukraine's aspiration to join NATO didn't trigger Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 or the 2022 war. Russia's actions seem to be driven more by an attempt to control Ukraine's resources and the shift towards democracy in Ukraine, which potentially threatened Putin's autocratic regime.

The expansion of NATO has contributed to Europe's security and stability. The alliance has acted as a deterrent against further aggression, providing a line of defense that has proven invaluable. Only a robust NATO stands between Putin and further aggression.

Wars of aggression have historically shown to yield little benefit for the aggressors, who often fare better by focusing on internal improvements rather than seeking external domination. A nation's most valuable resource – its people or human capital, can be significantly harmed by misinformation and manipulation associated with aggressive warfare.

Respecting people’s inherent dignity and their aversion to domination is essential for prosperity. When leadership relies on violence and manipulation to maintain power, it risks creating a society where individuals are susceptible to such tactics. People’s spirits crave truth and freedom; they will wither in an environment devoid of these basic human rights.

NATO has not been the cause of recent conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, Georgia, Crimea, or Syria. The idea that a country with thousands of nuclear weapons needs a "defensive" perimeter is a fallacy used to justify territorial ambitions. The entire argument is preposterous, as no land on the planet is worth risking nuclear Armageddon over.

The outdated concept of carving up the world bilaterally between East and West is not only flawed but obsolete. The notion of exclusive spheres of influence over a group of states is incompatible with human values, freedom, and self-determination.

The Great Persuasion Paradox: Where Logic Meets Emotion

Ever thought persuasion resembles a thermonuclear war? Odd comparison, right? But once you ignite the fuse, there's no turning back. You're not winning; you're poisoning the well.


Taking a Public Stance: A Mental Trap

Voicing a public stance is a one-way ticket into cognitive psychology's trap. It leads to confirmation bias. The moment you say, "I lean slightly conservative," your mind starts aligning with every conservative standpoint.


Cognitive Inertia: A Silent Force

Once you sway a bit to the right or left, cognitive inertia kicks in. You keep going; there's no turning back. This explains why people often vote along party lines, even on disjointed issues.


Beyond Party Lines: The Data Dilemma

Gun control, progressive taxes, immigration - they aren't intrinsically linked. Yet, we vote as one due to groupthink. But shouldn't we examine evidence?


Guns vs Swimming Pools: An Unusual Comparison

Take guns and swimming pools, for instance. Which one claims more lives? Surprisingly, it's swimming pools. But guns, designed to harm, invoke more fear. It's an emotional decision, and that's okay, as long as we recognize it.


The Hidden Environmental Side

Consider hunting versus farming. Hunting deer in a healthy ecosystem with a gun is arguably more eco-friendly than plowing a field for monoculture. The overpopulation of deer due to predator loss is another issue that hunting addresses. We're talking about data and evidence, remember?


Media's Role: Playing the Fear Card

The media typically highlights gun violence, downplaying issues like swimming pool deaths. Fear sells. But if this means progressing and addressing other issues, should we accept stricter gun laws like Europe, Australia, or Canada? They do see less gun violence.


Making Sense of Tragedy

Swimming pools claim more lives, but does that discount the tragedy of each life lost to gun violence? Absolutely not. Maybe if we were smarter, we'd tackle swimming pools first, but let's admit, we're not always logical.


The Reality of Control

Ridding criminals of guns is a tall task. But guns are just an example. The crux lies in prioritizing evidence-based policies and practices.

Conclusion: Choose Data, Not Fear

It's time to set emotions aside and embrace data for informed decisions. If we let fear dictate our opinions, we risk losing sight of what truly matters. Are you ready to challenge your biases and make evidence-based decisions?

Grammarly and Microsoft Word have it wrong! Deleting words like "I think" and "I believe" isn't always the best advice.

Believe it or not, the data you're banking on to back your stance may not be as convincing as you perceive. Interestingly, the other side believes the same about their data. Once you're committed to a side, say, on welfare reform, it becomes increasingly easy to embrace arguments from the same influences.

So, are your guys the honest ones while their guys are just spinning tales? It's an emotional journey, one that spans decades. Once upon a time, when you were 20, you were a free thinker. But now? Now, you're echoing propaganda. A professor nudged you to choose a side, pen down a persuasive essay, and here you are, decades later, shackled by cognitive bias and inertia. You're no longer a free thinker.

Asserting "I think," "I believe," or "the evidence suggests" isn't as compelling, is it? But dare to use these phrases, and you risk your grades, your promising career, and societal respect.

So, you took a leap of faith, stated your point as fact, and assumed the mantle of infinite wisdom. You did it for the grade, for that diploma, but at what cost? You traded your sense of wonder and independence for a pawn's role in an extremist vision of the future. Fast forward to now, and your once agile mind is shackled. And the person assigned the opposite viewpoint all those years ago? You're at odds with them now.

You've been groomed to be a missionary for your side. I've been there. As a young person, I was advised to be a missionary for the Mormon church. I was told to listen to archaeologists affiliated only with BYU.

Mormon leaders discouraged learning about confirmation bias, the cognitive trap, and the importance of sharing your testimony with others. They emphasized "knowing" the Church is true and following feelings, what they called the "fruit of the spirit." They advised against reading about controversial topics like plural marriage, Joseph Smith's wives, the priesthood's stance on race, and American Indian DNA.

But are political parties, like Republicans or Democrats, any better than the Mormon church? Do they guide you to an unbiased analysis of the pros and cons of each issue? Or are they, like the Church, pushing propaganda?

It's all about the talking points, the selective data supporting their side, the insistence of their rightness and the other's wrongness. Everyone is playing the game of manipulation and propaganda.

Don't expect Republicans or Democrats to build a fair platform that brings all their data together, judged by independent referees. No, they'd rather maintain separate websites, each championing their cause, each saying, "look here, here's why we're right and they're wrong." Meanwhile, the other side brings forward contradicting data.

So, what's your take? Are we merely pawns in this game of right vs. wrong? Are you ready to question your beliefs and biases? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

It seems like nobody's up for the challenge. Truth doesn't seem to be the priority, but winning does, given that they've already pledged allegiance to what they perceive as the best side. This echoes back to a poignant quote by Abraham Lincoln.

During the Civil War, a supporter told President Abraham Lincoln, "The Lord is on our side!" implying their cause was just and had divine backing. Lincoln, however, saw it differently. His response? "My main worry isn't whether God is on our side, but rather, I'm more focused on ensuring we're on God's side, for that's always the right side."

In essence, he advised against overconfidence in believing we're the righteous ones with divine support. The emphasis should be on doing what's morally right and just, regardless of the circumstances.

Fast forward to our time, and we have become more cognizant of cognitive pitfalls such as confirmation bias, cognitive inertia, groupthink, and the illusion of echo chambers. Lincoln's wisdom still holds water today, and with our newfound understanding, we shoulder an even greater responsibility.

We must strive to incorporate the scientific method into our debates and discussions. Our disputes and disagreements shouldn't be viewed through the subjective lens of personal beliefs or our supposed righteousness. Instead, we need to examine them through a neutral, evidence-based perspective.

We shouldn't pick sides based on emotions, traditions, or biases. Our goal must be to align ourselves with facts and evidence, wherever that may lead us. That way, we can ensure we're on the "God's side," as Lincoln put it – the side that stands for truth, justice, and righteousness.

What we've been trained to do, be it through our education, political affiliations, churches, or virtually any institution, is to focus on the evidence that validates our viewpoint. Unfortunately, this approach is limited, save for those instances where we adopt a transparent, scientific analysis.

More often than not, we're faced with biases echoing from both sides, with no concerted effort to collectively pursue the truth. Sure, you'll encounter contrasting opinions, but they should be presented in such a way that prompts a thorough exploration of the issues at hand. Our debates aren't structured to engage in a vigorous intellectual contest, nor are they designed to systematically evaluate the exchanges. Instead, they're dished out separately, allowing each faction to cheerlead their viewpoints and conveniently skip the real work of conflict resolution, leaving each side with the misguided notion that they've clinched another debate.

The current scenario of having a myriad of separate websites, each featuring its own pro-con arguments, is unproductive, to say the least. We seriously need to cut down on our reliance on countless disparate sources. It would be far more effective if Republicans and Democrats brought their data and arguments to one shared platform. This way, their views can be subjected to an intellectual 'deathmatch' - a survival of the fittest where the most convincing perspective emerges as the winner.

Take the Mormons as another example. They tend to say, "Oh, don't venture off to other websites (like Wikipedia); stick with the Mormon-owned ones." Interestingly, this sounds a lot like what Republicans and Democrats do. Republicans typically tune into Republican-leaning TV networks, while Democrats favor Democrat-oriented channels. Is it any wonder our society is so divided and facing challenges? We need a collective platform for shared understanding, not echo chambers.

Mormons often caution, "Wikipedia and the rest of the world are out to lead you astray; they aim to ruin your spirit. Our world is riddled with temptations, encouraging substance abuse, infidelity, and the abandonment of your spouse. These influences are malevolent, devilish even. For anything related to Mormonism, steer clear of Wikipedia."

Meanwhile, people outside the Mormon faith scoff. "Look at those naive Mormons!" they chuckle. "Can you believe the absurd things they subscribe to?" Yet, without missing a beat, they turn to Fox News or the New York Times, oblivious to the irony. They fail to realize that they are also being influenced, just as firmly locked within their own echo chambers.

So, what's our game plan? It's not a rehash of old tactics; no, it's not merely about resisting propaganda on a personal level. What we need are fresh political strategies where the pros and cons of an argument share the same space. We need to establish a set of rules to govern how we engage in debates and resolve disputes.

So, how do we do it? Well, it's about quantifying the discourse. We count the reasons for agreement and disagreement, and we assign them scores. This isn't just about tallying points; it's about assessing the unique perspectives in play.

Next, we examine how these points link to one another, considering their relative strengths and weaknesses. We group similar viewpoints to avoid redundancy and provide a more coherent narrative.

We also scrutinize the relevance of each argument. If a point is true, does it necessarily lead to a conclusion? Is it unique? If so, does it hold weight, or is it just a bit player in the grand scheme of things?

And there you have it—that's the blueprint. Simple, yet transformative. So, I appreciate your support in this endeavor. Let's step up and make a difference.

Looking forward to witnessing the impact of our collective efforts. Thank you!

Redefining Google: A Proposal

Let's broaden the use of PageRank beyond just ranking web pages. Here's how we could redefine the Google experience:

1. Apply PageRank to rank conclusions, using the strength of supporting and opposing evidence (pros and cons) as determinants.
2. Rank evidence based on the presence of corroborating or contradicting evidence. When an argument is weakened, it should have a trickle-down effect, weakening all conclusions that are built upon it.
3. Organize the world's data in a way that favors well-structured arguments. A good argument can be defined as one that is true, relevant, and important.
   • An argument can be deemed 'true' if it is logically sound (valid), supported by evidence (observations), and has been replicated.
   • The quality of this evidence and replication can be evaluated based on the number of participants, the degree of blindness in the study (blind, double-blind, etc.), and the number of independent replications.
4. Instead of directing users to potentially biased sites, Google should take the initiative in organizing the world's data. Offering a balanced view of pros and cons is far superior to exposing users to potential misinformation.
5. Google should prioritize data ranking based on reason and verifiable evidence rather than popularity or clout.
6. Lastly, Google should allow users to vote on the strengths and weaknesses of arguments. These should include considerations for logical coherence, the level of verification or replication, the relevance to the conclusion, and the importance (likelihood and impact of cost or benefits). The highest scoring arguments should be displayed at the top of their respective columns.

By implementing these changes, Google could become an even more valuable and trusted resource for users seeking balanced, unbiased answers. This could result in increased user engagement and potentially drive substantial revenue, as people continue to seek reliable information in an increasingly complex digital world.

American Scorecard: A New Approach to Measuring Progress

Currently, our economic and societal health is gauged by metrics like the stock market and GDP. However, these indicators can often be misleading. Even Simon Kuznets, the inventor of GDP, acknowledged its inadequacy as a holistic measure of national well-being. In today's context, this is evident as parameters such as life expectancy, unity, mental health, patriotism, culture, and confidence are on the decline, even as GDP and the stock market continue to rise. In essence, we are focusing on the wrong indicators to gauge our country's health, to our own detriment.

 It's time to broaden our evaluative framework to more accurately reflect our societal progress. Life expectancy, freedom from substance abuse, childhood success rates, and meaningful retirement rates should be recognized as key indicators of our nation's well-being. Policies should be evaluated and ranked based on their impact on these metrics, rather than the wealth accumulation of a few stockholders.

Challenges with Current Indicators The GDP does not account for cost of living, inflation rates, stability, inequality, health, or happiness. Consequently, the United States has seen a significant drop in rankings across various essential measures, such as life expectancy, clean water, and infant mortality.

 

Re-election rates bear no connection to the quality of legislation passed. At present, there's no reliable way for Congress to measure if their laws have positively impacted their constituents' lives.

In 1934, Simon Kuznets warned against using GDP as a measure of national well-being, yet, almost a century later, we continue to rely heavily on it. As Bobby Kennedy aptly stated, GDP "does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play….it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

 

A Proposed Solution Our party will base its decisions on policy performance, relying on open online cost-benefit analysis to gauge a policy's potential to meet our valid interests and goals.

We will require our candidates to present valid arguments indicating how each policy will lead to improvements across a range of potential costs or benefits.

 

Potential measurements could include, but are not limited to:

• Poverty rates
• Life expectancy
• Rates of business formation
• Clean water accessibility
• Crime rates
• Overdose deaths
• Government efficiency
• Mental health indicators
• Income growth & average incomes
• Affordability
• Environmental sustainability
• Recidivism
• Labor-force participation rate
• Military readiness
• Marriage rates
• Quality of infrastructure
• Rehabilitation rates
• Civic engagement
• Education rates
• Public debt and repayment interest loans.