Validation Cross Linkage
Formalizing Peer Validation
One of the primary challenges in any argument or debate today is the tendency for discussions to devolve into misunderstandings and misrepresentations of each other's points (or fundamental definitions).
When we debate or discuss, a turn-by-turn exchange where one person makes a statement, and the other person responds with a counterpoint is the general structure.
However, there is so much information and differing definitions today that any statement may not have the same meaning between people. Leading to loss of common understanding. Without better common ground, back-and-forth arguing without mutual definition and assumptions, can lead to frustration and a lack of progress, the core issues getting lost in translation.
The idea of this article is to formulate a structured, digital, confirmation method for honest discussion. The premise is simple but powerful:
before moving on to the next turn in the argument, both parties must agree on what was said. “You said X. Yes, I said X”
This structure ensures that each argument is accurately understood and acknowledged before counterpoints are introduced.
For example: if I make an argument that climate change cannot be prevented by man’s efforts without nuclear energy, my opponent must recapitulate my argument in their own words to my satisfaction before we move to their counterargument, which I in turn have to recapitulate to their satisfaction.
This process continues turn-by-turn, ensuring that each party fully contends with the other's perspective before proceeding. Constraining debate like this maintains honest and clear understanding which is essential for meaningful dialogue. Otherwise, you get cable news, and internet trolling…
This structured approach requires both parties to be genuinely interested and committed honest discussion/debate. It won't work with dishonest actors or those unwilling to engage in good faith. As they will be unable to get through even a single turn of mutual understanding and agreement.
However, for those who seek to understand and resolve differences in understanding and definitions, this method can significantly enhance the quality of debates and discussions.
The goal is not to "win" the argument or achieve a "gotcha" moment but to foster increased mutual understanding that can lead to better outcomes, more common ground, advance everyone’s critical thinking capabilities, and engagement.
In essence, this method aims to transform how we argue by ensuring that each point is clearly understood and agreed upon before moving forward. It's about creating a formalized, structured environment that maximizes mutual understanding and minimizes miscommunication.
Conceptual Framework for Ensuring Mutual Understanding in Arguments
Objective: To create a structured method for ensuring that all parties in a discussion or negotiation fully understand each other’s arguments, leading to more effective and honest communication, and ultimately, better decision-making and conflict resolution.
Core Principle: Mutual Recapitulation – The idea that a party must be able to accurately restate the other party’s argument to their satisfaction before presenting their own counterargument.
Steps to Implement the Framework
Initial Argument Presentation:
Each party presents their argument in a clear and concise manner. This initial presentation should include key points, supporting evidence, and the overall conclusion.
Recapitulation:
The receiving party must then restate the presenting party’s argument in their own words.
The presenting party must confirm that the restatement is accurate and captures the essence of their argument.
If the restatement is inaccurate, the presenting party provides clarifications until the receiving party can accurately recapitulate the argument.
Counterargument:
Once mutual understanding is established, the receiving party can present their counterargument.
The original presenting party must then restate the counterargument in their own words, following the same process of confirmation and clarification.
Clarifying Exchanges:
This process may require several rounds of clarifying exchanges to ensure both parties fully understand each other’s points.
Each round should focus on refining the understanding and eliminating any ambiguities or misunderstandings.
Formalization:
The method can be formalized into a set of guidelines or rules that all parties agree to follow at the beginning of a discussion or negotiation.
This can include written summaries of each argument and counterargument, along with confirmation from both parties that they agree on the restatements.
Example Initializing Contract for Twitter/Formal Debate
Contract for Ensuring Mutual Understanding in Discussions
We, the undersigned, agree to adhere to the following principles and steps to ensure mutual understanding and effective communication in our discussions and negotiations:
1. Present and Recap: - Each party will present their argument clearly and concisely. - The receiving party must accurately restate the presenting party’s argument. - Confirmation and clarification will be sought until the presenting party agrees that their argument has been accurately restated.
2. Counter and Recap: - After mutual understanding is confirmed, the receiving party will present their counterargument. - The original presenting party must accurately restate the counterargument. - Confirmation and clarification will be sought until the receiving party agrees that their counterargument has been accurately restated.
3. Clarifying Exchanges: - We acknowledge that several rounds of clarifying exchanges may be necessary to ensure full understanding. - Each round will focus on refining our understanding and eliminating misunderstandings.
4. Formalization: - We agree to document our arguments and counterarguments in written form, confirming mutual understanding before proceeding. - This formalized process aims to enhance honesty, clarity, and effectiveness in our discussions.
By adhering to this contract, we commit to fostering a respectful and productive dialogue that prioritizes mutual understanding and effective communication.
Signed,
[Your Name] [Other Party’s Name] [Date]This initializing contract can be adapted and posted to share the method and invite others to implement it in their discussions and negotiations. Though it relies on good faith engagement, only someone who intends to honestly get to a mutual agreement would even entertain such a method. I’ll write again if I find someone who is interested in engaging in such an agreement.