Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Socratic debates - wanna help?

proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 7:57:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Folks,

DDO is a lot of fun. I found it after starting my own version, now defunct.

Not having a ton of technical knowledge or time, I was happy to find DDO. However, I have an idea for a slight variation that I'm wondering if any of the smart folks here would be interested in exploring.

Brief Summary:

1. Goal would be to advance the discussion, NOT to "win" the debate;

2. Somewhat like DDO, points would be awarded for constructive disagreement, and deducted for abuse, semantics, etc.

3. Perhaps voters would declare their bias before voting, and in an interactive process, they would do their best to move the debate forward, under the following restrictions:

** Pro-bias: helps Pro with arguments, give points to Con for advancing argument
** Con-bias: helps Con with arguments, give points to Pro for advancing argument
** Neutral: votes for when either side advances the argument

Either Pro or Con can challenge the proclaimed status (Pro, Con or Neutral) of a voter. This would be to block biased voters from vote-bombing. A member would only be able to vote if either Pro or Con claimed her, or felt she was reliably neutral.

This is only a rough sketch. I'd love to develop it more, if anyone is interested.

NOTE: I don't really care if it's a .org or .com, i.e., I'm open to whether it makes money or not. There are obviously two ways to go:

1. Develop this to have ads and make a little cash; split fairly with other developers 2. Develop it without ads as a .org strictly for fun

Either way as far as I'm concerned, I would be perfectly happy to turn the concept over to DDO if we can develop it far enough that they are interested.

Thanks for reading.

THOUGHTS?
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 9:04:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 8:02:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
that's what the forums are for.

Thanks for commenting.

Yes, the forums are a good way to discuss issues.

However, what I'm thinking of is formalizing the Socratic process similar to how DDO has formalized simple debates. Sort of a way to "incentivize" constructive discussion with formal points and votes and things like that.

Forums can easily devolve into flaming and counter-flaming. Think what it would be like if constructive comments got points and B.S. got negative points in a fair voting process. We might get somebody like ... oops no reason to name names, right? :) We all can add names here. (Hope mine doesn't come up too often.:)

I just have a gut feel that this DDO concept, as good as it is, could be improved a bit more, extended so to speak to include a more Socratic approach to complement the typical adversarial structure of the debates.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 1:59:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 9:04:02 PM, proglib wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:02:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
that's what the forums are for.

Thanks for commenting.

Yes, the forums are a good way to discuss issues.

However, what I'm thinking of is formalizing the Socratic process similar to how DDO has formalized simple debates. Sort of a way to "incentivize" constructive discussion with formal points and votes and things like that.

Forums can easily devolve into flaming and counter-flaming.

Which can set up for a great debate opportunity. If the person doesn't want to debate, just ignore the person.

Think what it would be like if constructive comments got points and B.S. got negative points in a fair voting process. We might get somebody like ... oops no reason to name names, right? :) We all can add names here. (Hope mine doesn't come up too often.:)

I just have a gut feel that this DDO concept, as good as it is, could be improved a bit more, extended so to speak to include a more Socratic approach to complement the typical adversarial structure of the debates.

Except debate is a competition while Socratic seminar is not. How would you even judge it? If no side is trying to competitively prove their idea is right, then there's no real criteria. If the goal is to see which side is right, then socratic techniques will not work and debate tactics must be used.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 2:01:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean, the whole point of socratic discussions is to allow the discussion to venture into a whole different idea or discovery. If you have a fixed resolution, with fixed sides (Pro or Con) it doesn't really make much of a socratic discussion.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:56:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 2:01:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I mean, the whole point of socratic discussions is to allow the discussion to venture into a whole different idea or discovery. If you have a fixed resolution, with fixed sides (Pro or Con) it doesn't really make much of a socratic discussion.

Excellent points.

Hopefully an analogy to sports will help:

Track and field has individual races and team races or relays. Team races gets to what I'm thinking of, and one could go farther (no pun intended) and develop something along the line of orienteering, or team orienteering.

It is a complicated scheme, perhaps. And I may have used the wrong term (although your response indicates that "Socratic" may not be far off the mark.)

What I'd like to see is sort of a combining of the forums of DDO and the formal structure of DDO. It might look something like the following:

@AtheistsmartA starts a "Socratic" debate: "There is no god and I can prove it"

@StThomas: "I've been down that skeptic road before, and it's not pretty, and perhaps my theist friends and I can enlighten your atheist friends and you."

They each chose sides--say limited to 5 to a side like basketball.

Then they chose 1 or more volunteer referrees from people that both sides can agree will be fair, neutral observers.

The referrees may be key, because the "Socratic" method could be engaged in with as little as 2 people if you have someone neutral to help determine when constructive points are made that move the discussion forward.

Then the object is not so much to win by any means necessary, including just tearing your weak opponents silly arguments down, as it is to move the discussion forward and "win" by being the most constructive.

Again, thanks for your comments!
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 12:19:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 11:40:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
Does the loser have to drink hemlock?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 12:58:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 12:19:03 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/2/2013 11:40:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
Does the loser have to drink hemlock?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 1:12:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 12:58:51 PM, TUF wrote:
At 3/2/2013 12:19:03 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/2/2013 11:40:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
Does the loser have to drink hemlock?

LOL!
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 1:15:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 11:40:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
Does the loser have to drink hemlock?

Your comment made me laugh out loud. Your signature upped the ante. (Sorry, I should have "kept that to [my]self." :D)
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 1:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 1:15:38 PM, proglib wrote:
At 3/2/2013 11:40:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
Does the loser have to drink hemlock?

Your comment made me laugh out loud. Your signature upped the ante. (Sorry, I should have "kept that to [my]self." :D)

If any of you smart a**es have computer skills, and are interested in the concept, I'd like to hear from you.

DDO makes a little money off their concept. This concept might make a little cash also, and I'm not really interested in the cash (no, I'm not rich, just stupid.:)

If we could get the concept working, I'd be fine if the folks who had the technical skills got the cash and I got the "glory." And, yes, I'm still being ironic, I don't expect much cash or glory out of this, but it might be interesting to try to develop.

By the way, now that I've piqued some smart folks' interest I can let go of starting a forum called "Money for Nothing" to try to get some takers. :D

http://m.youtube.com...
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 1:33:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:56:03 AM, proglib wrote:
At 3/2/2013 2:01:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I mean, the whole point of socratic discussions is to allow the discussion to venture into a whole different idea or discovery. If you have a fixed resolution, with fixed sides (Pro or Con) it doesn't really make much of a socratic discussion.

Excellent points.

Hopefully an analogy to sports will help:

Track and field has individual races and team races or relays. Team races gets to what I'm thinking of, and one could go farther (no pun intended) and develop something along the line of orienteering, or team orienteering.

It is a complicated scheme, perhaps. And I may have used the wrong term (although your response indicates that "Socratic" may not be far off the mark.)

What I'd like to see is sort of a combining of the forums of DDO and the formal structure of DDO. It might look something like the following:

@AtheistsmartA starts a "Socratic" debate: "There is no god and I can prove it"

@StThomas: "I've been down that skeptic road before, and it's not pretty, and perhaps my theist friends and I can enlighten your atheist friends and you."

They each chose sides--say limited to 5 to a side like basketball.

Then they chose 1 or more volunteer referrees from people that both sides can agree will be fair, neutral observers.

The referrees may be key, because the "Socratic" method could be engaged in with as little as 2 people if you have someone neutral to help determine when constructive points are made that move the discussion forward.

Then the object is not so much to win by any means necessary, including just tearing your weak opponents silly arguments down, as it is to move the discussion forward and "win" by being the most constructive.

Again, thanks for your comments!

First of all, I'm 500% for your advocating of a better forum environment. :D

Second, I'm not intimately familiar with a socratic debate...at least how such a debate would differ from what DDO already has. The Socratic method is the cornerstone of our legal system, and every case that goes to court has two diametrically opposed positions - the prosecution and the defense - exactly like what we have here in DDO via PRO/CON.

It seems you would like to judge the quality of such a debate less on whether or not a person wins, and more on whether or not a person is able to dig deeply into a topic. Frankly, I think this has a LOT to do with how the resolution is originally defined, and a lot less to do with a change in methodology. Some resolutions beg for a one sentence debate. The current DDO process helps to weed out these kind of debates from other more substantive matters.

Personally, I typically friend people from whom I have seen demonstrable proof of engaging in deep discussion. The dashboard and what not helps to queue me into what these deep thinkers are thinking about. It works pretty well for me, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 5:00:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 1:33:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:56:03 AM, proglib wrote:
At 3/2/2013 2:01:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I mean, the whole point of socratic discussions is to allow the discussion to venture into a whole different idea or discovery. If you have a fixed resolution, with fixed sides (Pro or Con) it doesn't really make much of a socratic discussion.

Excellent points.

Hopefully an analogy to sports will help:

Track and field has individual races and team races or relays. Team races gets to what I'm thinking of, and one could go farther (no pun intended) and develop something along the line of orienteering, or team orienteering.

It is a complicated scheme, perhaps. And I may have used the wrong term (although your response indicates that "Socratic" may not be far off the mark.)

What I'd like to see is sort of a combining of the forums of DDO and the formal structure of DDO. It might look something like the following:

@AtheistsmartA starts a "Socratic" debate: "There is no god and I can prove it"

@StThomas: "I've been down that skeptic road before, and it's not pretty, and perhaps my theist friends and I can enlighten your atheist friends and you."

They each chose sides--say limited to 5 to a side like basketball.

Then they chose 1 or more volunteer referrees from people that both sides can agree will be fair, neutral observers.

The referrees may be key, because the "Socratic" method could be engaged in with as little as 2 people if you have someone neutral to help determine when constructive points are made that move the discussion forward.

Then the object is not so much to win by any means necessary, including just tearing your weak opponents silly arguments down, as it is to move the discussion forward and "win" by being the most constructive.

Again, thanks for your comments!

First of all, I'm 500% for your advocating of a better forum environment. :D

Second, I'm not intimately familiar with a socratic debate...at least how such a debate would differ from what DDO already has. The Socratic method is the cornerstone of our legal system, and every case that goes to court has two diametrically opposed positions - the prosecution and the defense - exactly like what we have here in DDO via PRO/CON.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

[On my phone, so a little clunky]

My understanding of Socratic method (only cursory, at best) makes it out to be more dynamic than DDO or our legal system. I seem to remember something to do with a dialectic, i.e., Moving the conversation forward as opposed to"winning" a static debate or legal case.

again, thanks for your thoughts, also!

It seems you would like to judge the quality of such a debate less on whether or not a person wins, and more on whether or not a person is able to dig deeply into a topic. Frankly, I think this has a LOT to do with how the resolution is originally defined, and a lot less to do with a change in methodology. Some resolutions beg for a one sentence debate. The current DDO process helps to weed out these kind of debates from other more substantive matters.

Personally, I typically friend people from whom I have seen demonstrable proof of engaging in deep discussion. The dashboard and what not helps to queue me into what these deep thinkers are thinking about. It works pretty well for me, IMHO.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 5:27:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:57:21 PM, proglib wrote:
Folks,

DDO is a lot of fun. I found it after starting my own version, now defunct.

Not having a ton of technical knowledge or time, I was happy to find DDO. However, I have an idea for a slight variation that I'm wondering if any of the smart folks here would be interested in exploring.

Brief Summary:

1. Goal would be to advance the discussion, NOT to "win" the debate;

2. Somewhat like DDO, points would be awarded for constructive disagreement, and deducted for abuse, semantics, etc.

3. Perhaps voters would declare their bias before voting, and in an interactive process, they would do their best to move the debate forward, under the following restrictions:

** Pro-bias: helps Pro with arguments, give points to Con for advancing argument
** Con-bias: helps Con with arguments, give points to Pro for advancing argument
** Neutral: votes for when either side advances the argument

Either Pro or Con can challenge the proclaimed status (Pro, Con or Neutral) of a voter. This would be to block biased voters from vote-bombing. A member would only be able to vote if either Pro or Con claimed her, or felt she was reliably neutral.

This is only a rough sketch. I'd love to develop it more, if anyone is interested.

NOTE: I don't really care if it's a .org or .com, i.e., I'm open to whether it makes money or not. There are obviously two ways to go:

1. Develop this to have ads and make a little cash; split fairly with other developers 2. Develop it without ads as a .org strictly for fun

Either way as far as I'm concerned, I would be perfectly happy to turn the concept over to DDO if we can develop it far enough that they are interested.

Thanks for reading.

THOUGHTS?

That's funny, I found out about this while trying to make a debate site to.
Cinco
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 5:48:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:57:21 PM, proglib wrote:
Folks,

DDO is a lot of fun. I found it after starting my own version, now defunct.

Not having a ton of technical knowledge or time, I was happy to find DDO. However, I have an idea for a slight variation that I'm wondering if any of the smart folks here would be interested in exploring.

Brief Summary:

1. Goal would be to advance the discussion, NOT to "win" the debate;

2. Somewhat like DDO, points would be awarded for constructive disagreement, and deducted for abuse, semantics, etc.

3. Perhaps voters would declare their bias before voting, and in an interactive process, they would do their best to move the debate forward, under the following restrictions:

** Pro-bias: helps Pro with arguments, give points to Con for advancing argument
** Con-bias: helps Con with arguments, give points to Pro for advancing argument
** Neutral: votes for when either side advances the argument

Either Pro or Con can challenge the proclaimed status (Pro, Con or Neutral) of a voter. This would be to block biased voters from vote-bombing. A member would only be able to vote if either Pro or Con claimed her, or felt she was reliably neutral.

This is only a rough sketch. I'd love to develop it more, if anyone is interested.

NOTE: I don't really care if it's a .org or .com, i.e., I'm open to whether it makes money or not. There are obviously two ways to go:

1. Develop this to have ads and make a little cash; split fairly with other developers 2. Develop it without ads as a .org strictly for fun

Either way as far as I'm concerned, I would be perfectly happy to turn the concept over to DDO if we can develop it far enough that they are interested.

Thanks for reading.

THOUGHTS?

I understand what you mean. I definitely prefer philosophical dialogue to debate of any color but not public dialogue. I thought about starting a philosophical matchmaking service - matching up the philosophically minded with dialogue "partners" - but few understood what I was talking about. Not many people are as interested in "moving" thought as they are in "defending" or "defeating" static ideas.
If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan
Cinco
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:02:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Competition" and "keeping score" aren't really very thought-friendly.
If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:03:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 5:48:57 PM, Cinco wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:57:21 PM, proglib wrote:
Folks,

DDO is a lot of fun. I found it after starting my own version, now defunct.

Not having a ton of technical knowledge or time, I was happy to find DDO. However, I have an idea for a slight variation that I'm wondering if any of the smart folks here would be interested in exploring.

Brief Summary:

1. Goal would be to advance the discussion, NOT to "win" the debate;

2. Somewhat like DDO, points would be awarded for constructive disagreement, and deducted for abuse, semantics, etc.

3. Perhaps voters would declare their bias before voting, and in an interactive process, they would do their best to move the debate forward, under the following restrictions:

** Pro-bias: helps Pro with arguments, give points to Con for advancing argument
** Con-bias: helps Con with arguments, give points to Pro for advancing argument
** Neutral: votes for when either side advances the argument

Either Pro or Con can challenge the proclaimed status (Pro, Con or Neutral) of a voter. This would be to block biased voters from vote-bombing. A member would only be able to vote if either Pro or Con claimed her, or felt she was reliably neutral.

This is only a rough sketch. I'd love to develop it more, if anyone is interested.

NOTE: I don't really care if it's a .org or .com, i.e., I'm open to whether it makes money or not. There are obviously two ways to go:

1. Develop this to have ads and make a little cash; split fairly with other developers 2. Develop it without ads as a .org strictly for fun

Either way as far as I'm concerned, I would be perfectly happy to turn the concept over to DDO if we can develop it far enough that they are interested.

Thanks for reading.

THOUGHTS?

I understand what you mean. I definitely prefer philosophical dialogue to debate of any color but not public dialogue. I thought about starting a philosophical matchmaking service - matching up the philosophically minded with dialogue "partners" - but few understood what I was talking about. Not many people are as interested in "moving" thought as they are in "defending" or "defeating" static ideas.

Cool concept.

Since there is some interest, and with all the really smart people on DDO, I think I'm going to pursue this a bit more. PM me if your interest is more than academic--i.e., interested in doing some work to help make it happen.

Though I've never been very entrepreneurial, I've been around long enough to know some of the questions to ask. (Also had quite a few business classes, thought "that and 5 dollars...".)

[And another fun signature. I had to listen to the song...]

http://m.youtube.com...
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:15:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:02:45 PM, Cinco wrote:
"Competition" and "keeping score" aren't really very thought-friendly.

Partly, I would agree with you. However, [nearly?] all of western education is built on those two concepts, so what's not to like. [Tongue firmly in cheek, :D]

Just from my own experience, I find that if I don't take the competition or the scoring two seriously I can think fine under competitive scoring systems. One of those for whom the SAT and other standardized testing was designed, I guess. Not bragging here, I'd love to have a bit more artistic ability and the other things that standardized test can't score at all. [How about courage, for example?]

Anyhow. My concept is to lighten up a bit on the competitiveness and add some cooperativeness [sort of like amateur, non-competitive coed softball versus uptight, competitive baseball, football, tennis, etc., etc.]
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
Cinco
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:58:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:15:04 PM, proglib wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:02:45 PM, Cinco wrote:
"Competition" and "keeping score" aren't really very thought-friendly.

Partly, I would agree with you. However, [nearly?] all of western education is built on those two concepts, so what's not to like. [Tongue firmly in cheek, :D]

Just from my own experience, I find that if I don't take the competition or the scoring two seriously I can think fine under competitive scoring systems. One of those for whom the SAT and other standardized testing was designed, I guess. Not bragging here, I'd love to have a bit more artistic ability and the other things that standardized test can't score at all. [How about courage, for example?]

Anyhow. My concept is to lighten up a bit on the competitiveness and add some cooperativeness [sort of like amateur, non-competitive coed softball versus uptight, competitive baseball, football, tennis, etc., etc.]

I also understand what you're saying, here, as this is exactly when, where and why western education and I parted ways. Even so, I would definitely like to see such a site - if for no other reason than to see how one would go about getting "competitors" to "lighten up"! I'd PM you but you're "not accepting messages".
If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:29:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:58:19 PM, Cinco wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:15:04 PM, proglib wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:02:45 PM, Cinco wrote:
"Competition" and "keeping score" aren't really very thought-friendly.

Partly, I would agree with you. However, [nearly?] all of western education is built on those two concepts, so what's not to like. [Tongue firmly in cheek, :D]

Just from my own experience, I find that if I don't take the competition or the scoring two seriously I can think fine under competitive scoring systems. One of those for whom the SAT and other standardized testing was designed, I guess. Not bragging here, I'd love to have a bit more artistic ability and the other things that standardized test can't score at all. [How about courage, for example?]

Anyhow. My concept is to lighten up a bit on the competitiveness and add some cooperativeness [sort of like amateur, non-competitive coed softball versus uptight, competitive baseball, football, tennis, etc., etc.]

I also understand what you're saying, here, as this is exactly when, where and why western education and I parted ways. Even so, I would definitely like to see such a site - if for no other reason than to see how one would go about getting "competitors" to "lighten up"! I'd PM you but you're "not accepting messages".

Fixed my profile, BTW. ("Didn't know why I'm not accepting messages." LOL at myself:D)
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 12:55:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Several people have expressed interest. I'll PM those who have contacted me. Feel free to PM me if you want to help.

So far the consensus seems to be leaning towards a nonprofit structure.

(FYI, in case some have questions, nonprofit structure does not preclude those working on this from receiving a salary or consultant pay.)
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...