Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

by robbizorg • 10 years ago

334 223 10 years ago

robbizorg3• 10 years ago

Hi everyone,

Recently, given the results of the election and the divisiveness that's been revealed because of it, it seems like the country isn't talking to one another anymore. We're afraid of one another and the polices the other political party will put in place. A lot of this, I think, has to deal with the lack of communication between actual human beings that lie on both sides of the isle. I made this app, Mest, to try and get people who hold different opinions talking to one another. We just have to start doing something to deal with the ever increasing division in the U.S.

jimnotgym• 10 years ago

I actually was having a great reconciling conversation with a guy on here just now. I love the idea. I did get disconnected after a while btw. My messages just didn't post.

I came away feeling more like I understood the other side of the debate so well done!

shireboy3• 10 years ago

Agree in principle, but one thing that threw me off off the bat- it asked if I was for or against trump. My views are more nuanced than that- to the point I wouldn't feel comfortable selecting either. Not sure how to best express that in the app, but I do think it's one of the things people misunderstand about "the other".

smoyer2• 10 years ago

I was hoping it was a text entry box too!

GrinningFool2• 10 years ago

Maybe 'rate your support of Trump/the outcome of the election on a scale from 1 to 10'?

patcon• 10 years ago

This tool is mind-blowingly effective a warding off the sort of concerns that you raise, of a tool not capturing and reflecting users' many complex viewpoints: https://blog.pol.is/pol-is-in-taiwan-da7570d372b5#.1pbjuwoqa

It's mainly geared toward single-issue consultations and discussions, but definitely worth understanding.

I know some folks who facilitate municipal consultations in one of the largest Canadian cities, a job for which helping often divided participants to arrive at meaningful consensus is high-priority. Their comment after the demo was "My mind is honestly reeling right now. Never in my life did I think any part of my job could be automated and democratized, because what I do is synthesize fuzzy participant feelings in a very unscalable way. But this tool just might automate away some of what we do."

inimino3• 10 years ago

If it didn't divide people into two groups then how would it match them up? Just pick the answer that best fits. If you're really in the middle then you presumably wouldn't need to have the conversation.

austincheney2• 10 years ago

A two party system is a large part of this problem. One group validates itself by demonizing the only other player in town. It's toxic and it energizes the most self-serving of us.

lucaspiller• 10 years ago

Do they actually want different things though? In the UK it seems like all the politicians want the same - and all the people want the opposite.

pmarreck• 10 years ago

The two-party system is a direct consequence of the winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post voting system.

If you want more than 2 polarizing parties to emerge, you have to use an alternative voting system which allows ranking, such as IRV, and thus encourages third parties instead of disincentivizing them (due to spoiler effect).

mavdi• 10 years ago

I actually think we're talking too much. Sometimes even when we have nothing constructive to say.

wu-ikkyu2• 10 years ago

Listening is an underrated and scarce skill.

fit2rule• 10 years ago

Why is it you think dialectic materialism is worth the effort?

masondixon• 10 years ago

Yo great idea. Its timing out though. Plz fix! Use Firebase!

beatpanda4• 10 years ago

This is stupid. One side is saying "we want to get rid of all the immigrants." My disagreement with that is not a communication problem, it's that that position is a red line. There's no chance of me being convinced that forcibly removing immigrants is a good idea. So why even have the conversation? What good could that possibly do?

ema• 10 years ago

Don't you feel at least a little bit curious on why someone could adopt a position that is so obviously wrong to you? Remember, these are people too, not that much unlike you. Some of them might even have the same favorite movies as you.

flukus3• 10 years ago

So why even have they conversation? What good could that possibly do?

To see how the came to that conclusion. It's not like they hate brown people that speak funny, they have real issues that rightly or wrongly get blamed on immigration.

schoen4• 10 years ago

I've had what I thought were pretty constructive and interesting conversations about this topic right here on Hacker News.

Maybe you could talk about smaller and more specific aspects of the issue with people, like

* How has present-day opposition to immigration in the U.S. developed? Was there always strong anti-immigrant sentiment in this country? How were immigrants viewed in different eras? Were parts of those views accurate or inaccurate?

* What are the moral arguments in favor of people's right to migrate? What are the moral arguments in favor of a nation's right to prevent or limit migration? Is it important what existing citizens of a country think? Is it important why they think it?

* Is the present-day international system of nation-states and borders a good idea? How about various notions of citizenship? Are some criteria for citizenship obviously reasonable or unreasonable? Should criteria for citizenship be decided politically by existing citizens or are some kinds of decisions they might reach clearly unfair or morally wrong?

* Should people who live in a country feel proud that others want to move there? Should they feel proud of allowing or encouraging others to do so?

* Why are so many economists so strongly in favor of unrestricted or nearly unrestricted migration? Why have other people found the economists' consensus hard to accept?

* How do immigration restrictions interact with policy mechanisms like a welfare state and minimum wage?

* Is it good, bad, or neither for a government to favor the interests or preferences of existing citizens over others' interests? If it's not bad to do so, are there clear limits to how or to what extent the government may neglect or override foreigners' interests?

* What do we think about cultural differences between people living in different parts of the world? Would we like to acculturate as many people as possible to our own culture and way of life if we had the opportunity? Do we think that acculturation of this sort is inherently good? Do we think existing cultural differences are good, bad, or neither, and do we think at least some cultural differences can be placed on a hierarchy where one culture gets something more right than another?

* Are immigration critics right to worry that a culture could be made worse (and in some way less effective) by the arrival of lots of people with different cultural values? Are immigration supporters right to hope that a culture could be enriched by the arrival of lots of people with different ideas and traditions?

* Is there a meaningful moral difference between trying to deport existing residents who entered a territory without following its official migration rules, and trying to prevent other people from doing so in the future?

* What are the differences between population growth through migration and population growth through reproduction? Doesn't this undermine a simple intuition that migrants take away jobs from existing residents?

* How legitimate is it for members of an ethnic or cultural group to want to have their own nation-state and to make that nation-state somehow reflect the character or interests of that group rather than other groups?

* Is it true (as an article recently posted to HN suggested) that migration almost always makes the economy bigger and creates more total employment, but that the benefits of this growth may be quite unequally distributed or captured? Could migration economically benefit most people while economically harming some people?

* To what extent should a country try to assimilate migrants and to what extent should it be proud of having done so? Are there likely problems if large-scale migration happens without a corresponding assimilation? How successful has assimilation been in the past? Is there something legitimate in the preferences of migrants who don't want to assimilate (or only want to assimilate a little bit)? Is there something legitimate in the preferences of people who strongly want migrants to assimilate?

* Is there some kind of hypocrisy in creating or enforcing significantly stronger immigration restrictions today than those that prevailed in the past?

* Are there reasons for migration that are more or less important than others? How much should discussions about immigration address migrants' motivations? Are there motivations that change the moral status or significance of someone's desire to migrate?

* Many governments have created programs that try to draw distinctions among would-be migrants on the basis of their desirability. Have these programs worked well on their own terms? Who proposed them, and who got to create the criteria for desirability?

* What could governments reasonably know or ask about visitors or would-be immigrants?

* How much migration might occur if practical restrictions on it were removed? What might the long-term consequences be?

* If it's legitimate to physically restrict some kinds of immigration, what kinds of enforcement measures are proportionate and should people be punished somehow for circumventing or attempting to circumvent them?

* What if a country allows people to immigrate easily but makes it difficult or impossible for them to acquire citizenship? (How about temporary "non-immigrant" work visas?)

I bet there are about a dozen more things that could be discussed in this area.

I mention these things because I think it's possible to learn something from talking about them with people who radically disagree with you (and you don't have to give up your moral outlook on the situation, nor your political goals!).

jkestner2• 10 years ago

While the general goal of this site is a good idea, we'll have a better chance of fostering understanding by approaching the subjects indirectly. Build empathy and rapport first, then you'll have the context to approach the divisive questions productively.

I'd like to see this built on top of Facebook, where a) people are already having conversations unproductively, and b) you have the demographic information to understand who you're pairing without having to bluntly ask them which side of an issue they're taking.

slowmotiony2• 10 years ago

Which side is saying they want to get rid of all immigrants?

FullMtlAlcoholc• 10 years ago

First off, fantastic tool and thank you for trying to be a part of the solution.

However, this does little to solve the actual problem. People are just more likely to not be civil behind closed doors. For example , I frequently commute in Los Angeles traffic. If Im attempting to merge or change lanes with my blinker on, people wont budge or will even speed up. My normally docile mother and girlfriend will expletive laced insults that they never would. They are nicer to people who may waste 5 minutes of their time in person than someone in a car who wastes maybe .01 seconds of their time.

When I make direct eye contact with them and force them to acknowledge my basic humanity, no one has ever been a traffic asshole. Conversely, in online gaming apparently the entire 12 yr old population has had coitus with my mother.

I had high hopes that the Internet would drastically reduce ignorance and make telling lies much more difficult. This whole election season would be perfect for an episode of Black Mirror.

Daniel_Marcos• 10 years ago

Some feedback:

It's really strange how new messages appear at the top of the conversation instead of at the bottom. It's kind of unintuitive.

It would also be nice that with the browser at 100%, the chat window was big enough to reach the "new message" box. There's a big empty gap that's kind of awkward.

Edit-- Also, pressing escape twice either doesn't work for me or there's no feedback to confirm that I disconnected successfully.

I like it a lot, though, awesome job!! :)

d--b2• 10 years ago

Somehow, I think there's not going to be a lot of trump supporters out there.

ghufran_syed• 10 years ago

Well, there's a lower bound of around 50 million trump supporters in the US based on last night's election results...

Mickydtron• 10 years ago

Yes, but Hacker News is not exactly a random slice of American voters. I would expect to find some, but not many, Trump supporters who are going to find and use a site like this.

d--b2• 10 years ago

Oh, come on, you know what I meant! As if the readership of HN was not massively biased! I'd love for this website to work, but if you're posting on hacker news, I doubt you'll get with a Trump voter from Montana!

matwood2• 10 years ago

Well there are Trump supporters and people who really dislike Hilary. Based on the exit polling it looks like very few people loved who they voted for, and instead voted against someone else.

utternerd• 10 years ago

How about other topics to debate?

kaolti• 10 years ago

Great idea, love it!

AndrewKemendo• 10 years ago

I'd be interested in a non-binary option.

I am neither for nor against Trump, rather I'm interested in the relative merits or faults inherent in his policy proposals (where possible to investigate) and discourse.

MarkPNeyer• 10 years ago

This tool is still very primitive (i'm still working on it) but it does what you're looking for:

http://consensus-148618.appspot.com/

You construct an argument like a proof, with supporting arguments. People can share their opinions on each step of your argument.

It doesn't allow direct back and forth yet; you'd ahve to pass the link around.

sandworm1013• 10 years ago

The time for talking seems over. The days of toleration, of nodding along and trying to engage with the crazy uncle over thanksgiving dinner seem to have failed. It may be time for more direct action, for properly ostracizing such people. The racists and homophones aren't going to be invited to my family gatherings anymore. And when they ask I will make sure they understand why.

Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they can until they understand exactly what they are doing. They don't know that they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people. They need to told exactly how dangerous we believe them to be.

JadeNB2• 10 years ago

I think that it's important to speak out against intolerance, but also to be careful about retreating into righteousness; the groundswell of support for Trump is (probably, since I don't know any better than any of the countless other people who got this election totally wrong) precisely from people who feel that the direction of their country is leaving them behind. As we have seen, insisting that they are right, and that the worst of their attitudes should be left behind, doesn't silence them; it makes them feel forced into desperate action, willing to elect anyone who will (appear to) listen to and validate them.

sandworm1013• 10 years ago

But the engagement approach has failed. It is time for something new. Another cycle of engagement and acquiescence may only exacerbate the problem.

I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. Nobody has ever told them, they have never been confronted by someone they actually know and respect. Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. It's a two-step process.

We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. Many start along the lines of "It may be racist, but that's what we need to fix today's problems." At least they acknowledge the description.

crdoconnor• 10 years ago

The racists and homophones

Oh dear lord.

madaxe_again• 10 years ago

Raceists. People who like to race.

marcv81• 10 years ago

Claire and Clare are no longer welcome!

dang• 10 years ago

Please don't post inflammatory comments on flamewar topics to Hacker News. We hope to keep a higher standard both in civility and substance here.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911187 and marked it off-topic.

GrinningFool2• 10 years ago

The days of toleration, of nodding along and trying to engage with the crazy uncle over thanksgiving dinner seem to have failed.

Indeed. But whose failure is it?

Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they can until they understand exactly what they are doing.

You're assuming that everyone who supported Trump is racist. I know several intelligent, non-racist people who voted for Trump - they did it acknowledging that he was a piece of shit, but that he was a piece of shit who didn't hide the fact. He has opinions and he speaks them, instead of hiding them behind changing words.

Further, they see him as a chance to disrupt the current broken state of government - by brute force of personality.

Outside of the fringes of racists and homophonics [sic] , I think this is what won him the election.

They don't know that they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people.

Painting everyone who did vote for him with the racist/homophobe brush ensures that there's no path for things to get better. People on average are not stupid - they're just frustrated with the state of things, and want to see change.

Change with a wrecking ball is still change.

As the father of a bi-racial child I'm terrified for his future this morning. But this is tempered by knowing that 51%* of the country doesn't hate my son or others based on skin color.* They hate where our country is going, and saw voting for this person as the best way to change that.

[1] [edit] 47% apparently.

[2] Okay, I don't know it, but the data strongly suggests it.

pedrosorio• 10 years ago

"51% of the country"

Clinton won the popular vote.

dudul2• 10 years ago

And this type of post is how we got there. Thanks for illustrating the problem :)

cshreve• 10 years ago

This. Exactly.

sergiotapia• 10 years ago

I just want to publicly say that you and your position disgust me.

How long until you find yourself joining in on the fun? https://vid.me/3Fqo

__BrianDGLS__• 10 years ago

Isn't that what the internet is for?

vinay427• 10 years ago

Until most communities naturally dissolve into "subreddit"-esque groups where users share similar views to enjoy validation and avoid being downvoted. Explicitly encouraging opposing viewpoints may help alleviate this problem.

astrodust3• 10 years ago

Not really. It just encourages people to fight for their team.

You need a place where there are no teams, where it's not A vs. B, but a place where you're tackling smaller problems and talking solutions which can be understood and validated.

maloney2• 10 years ago

Your bundle.js file is 4.4MB and took 30 seconds to load (given several attempts). I would consider getting that under control, at the very least gzip the file.

endless1234• 10 years ago

How can a site like this require that much clientside javascript?

andrewmcwatters3• 10 years ago

it's 2016

johansch2• 10 years ago

Frameworks using frameworks using frameworks using frameworks.

Also: lots of front-end developers are into personal fame - and because they are front-end people they are also good at web-based marketing strategies. This works recursively :/

Oh and also: lots of front-end developers are relatively speaking weak in terms of architecture and general programming ability. (There; I said it.)

kybernetikos• 10 years ago

It probably shouldn't but JS doesn't have much of a standard library so it's easy to make unfair comparisons.

How big do you think a java client to do the same thing would be?

erikbye• 10 years ago

Use a CDN? I already have these libs cached...

Kequc• 10 years ago

Good lord you're right. The question on the landing page should be "are you for/against massive over engineering of client side apps?"

glook• 10 years ago

Looking for Partner FOR Donald Trump... And looking... and looking... and looking...

benmcnelly2• 10 years ago

...partner found: Whats up man, aer you doing OK?

Joeboy• 10 years ago

It stopped working after I said "Hi" so it didn't work out for me, but I like the idea. I guess maybe it's being hugged to death at the moment.

I fear that once The Internet finds it, going there will stop being a pleasant experience.

stronsay• 10 years ago

Site is a mess while using Tor Browser. Double Esc doesn't work. Messages aren't going through.

hiven• 10 years ago

I start conversations but then it just stops working

escape_plan• 10 years ago

I am using IE Edge, it works there

dudul2• 10 years ago

Yeah, I'm sure the racist, xenophobic, sexist deplorables can't wait to chat with those who've been demonizing them for an entire year.

ivm• 10 years ago

Sorry but humanity needs more self-understanding, empathy towards others and non-political activism. Arguing on the Internet does not help or we would be living in utopia since 90s.

mbishop• 10 years ago

It's enough of a challenge to communicate effectively through text-only discussions with people I like. I like this idea, but wish it were full video chat so I could get facial expressions and tone.

astrodust3• 10 years ago

No, no you really don't. Didn't Chatroulette teach anyone anything?

xenophon• 10 years ago

Love the concept -- I think it is sorely needed -- but my messages didn't post and I got disconnected after a single exchange.

lucaspottersky• 10 years ago

its pretty cool. but as for me, i already spend 80% of my interactions talking to people i disagree with, i think i have enough of it already =)

farright3• 10 years ago

This site seems to be broken, I get matched but most messages don't post. In the meantime the best way to have a discussion with Trump supporters is not to vote them to negative infinity on HN :-)

anindha2• 10 years ago

It doesn't seem to be working for me after I match. I enter some text and nothing updates.

anindha2• 10 years ago

It seems to be working now

Edit: its somewhat working. I think the issue is if the person disconnects it looks like your messages aren't being sent (theory).

matmann2001• 10 years ago

What is the origin of the name Mest? I can't help but think of that emo band from the 00's.

jyriand• 10 years ago

It means "revenge" in russian.

clishem• 10 years ago

It means "manure" in Dutch :)

ipsin• 10 years ago

I had a bad reaction because I thought it was related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEST_(Scientology)

KiDD• 10 years ago

It crashed in latest Safari pretty much soon as the chat started...

pklausler3• 10 years ago

There are disagreements over opinions and there are disagreements over basic facts, and I'm just done with arguing with crazy people who have their own weird realities.

at-fates-hands2• 10 years ago

Even in the face of basic facts, people are still not very forthcoming in wanting to engage in a rational discourse.

For instance, people who lost their minds that Bush misled the public on the WMD's in Iraq, were just fine arguing the fact that Obama lied when he said if I like my doctor, I can keep my doctor or when he said my health care costs would go down $2,500/year. I'm sorry, but you can't accuse one party of lying, then defend your guy when he lies.

The problem with where we are now is that people's realities are too closely tied with their political views. So even when they are presented with facts, it's hard for them to accept it as being true or reliable.

madamelic• 10 years ago

I think most people would agree "ObamaCare" is a disaster. Most rational people could look at it and go "Yeah, we should do something differently".

"Republicans" say rip it out, go back to what we had before, don't adopt anything from it.

"Democrats" say to keep it and try to fix it.

Can it be fixed? Who knows. But ripping something out because it isn't perfect after two years is completely insane.

The US has a completely broken healthcare system and handing it back to corporations isn't going to fix it.

didibus3• 10 years ago

You'll have to define lies. To me one sounds more like a hypothetical, this is the plan and this is what we hope the outcome will be like. While the other is more of a standard lie, like, I know this isn't true, but I'm telling you otherwise.

Maybe if you had more similar examples?

One thing we have to be careful about is wrong associations, equating two things that actually differ subtly. As they say, the devil is in the details.

newshacker47• 10 years ago

I can see people losing their minds about a lie that leads to war compared to overselling a change to medical insurance. I would like politicians (or anybody) not to lie about anything, but the consequences of those seem to be in completely different ballparks.

farright3• 10 years ago

Everyone needs to break out of their own bubble to some extent, though other equally misinformed people may not be the best source.

My advice is to read the most informed, reasonable representatives of different viewpoints you can find, and then see why they disagree. Often people will play fast and loose with the facts in order to convince people they consider less educated, but when directing their words towards those they consider their peers, they will be more honest.

An example from the right is the many economists who should know better refuse to distance themselves from the idea of the "Laffer Curve", the idea that you can raise revenue by lowering taxes. Even though they know the Laffer Curve is bullshit, they don't want to refute it because it is a useful rhetorical tool.

An example from the left is that most moderate liberals agree that black Americans commit much more crime (EDIT: I meant "per capita", personally I think a reasonable reading of this comment as a whole would take that as implied) than white Americans. However, they don't want people to hear this fact except in the context where it's already agreed that the main cause for this is structural factors (i.e. a cycle of poverty, crime and lack of education). So in liberal circles this fact is "obvious" and "uninteresting" since the real question is how these structural factors operate. And yet at the same time, outside liberal circles this fact is considered "racist" and liberals do nothing to clarify that it is in fact true.

pklausler3• 10 years ago

Whites were arrested for 276,460 violent crimes in 2015. Blacks were arrested for 169,612.

Source: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/arrests/index.c...

okreallywtf2• 10 years ago

While I think that tech tools like this have the potential to be great, so far I think technology has made the problem worse. My conclusion from my recent experiences over the last year or so with the election and before (and volunteering/organizing volunteers therefor) is that people don't just need to communicate, we need to interact, and my observation is that this needs to happen (or at the very least works best) face to face. Talking to someone over the phone or maybe with video chat could work but anything that separates you from the person you are communicating with creates barriers for that communication (I am convinced). Communicating with people face to face (whether they agree with you or not) is one of the most basic and satisfying parts of being human and we're finding more and more ways to not do that.

guelo• 10 years ago

You're basically saying that there is no hope of fixing the problem since what you're suggesting is never going to happen at any scale. If nothing else this tool, even if imperfect, offers some hope.

jrowley• 10 years ago

It's not completely impossible to imagine a tool like this using webrtc to have people video chat/discuss issues together. I'm not sure how we incentive users to actually use the tool and remain respectful - but maybe celebrities or cultural shifts would make people feel obligated to talk with those of differing opinion.

okreallywtf2• 10 years ago

I'm not saying that all, but I think that part of the solution will be finding ways to get people interacting with each other directly in more ways either through direct outreach (going door to door or talking to people in public) or civic engagement. You don't have to be exposed to everyone, I had some really positive conversations when stuck at jury duty last time. A lot of people just go find a corner to hole up in but I ended up sharing a corner of the courthouse with a group of people that preferred to chat and it was a really nice way to while away the time (we had a 2 hour discussion about gun control that was very civil and diverse in ideology which the internet would lead you to believe was impossible).

I'm not saying any of this to detract from this tool or any of the other interesting tools linked here, I think its great to try to find as many solutions as possible but its just been my observation recently that humans interact best face to face, hopefully we can find a more scalable solution though.

wu-ikkyu2• 10 years ago

The future of virtual reality (i.e. a holodeck) could enhance peer to peer communication by moving from just text based communication to showing body language, tone of voice, facial expressions etc.

losteric3• 10 years ago

I think modern transportation and communication have contributed to our increasingly divided society... by extending our interactions over larger areas, those tools allow us to naively fall into our own physical "filter bubbles".

Modern transportation contributed towards physical obesity. Technology became so efficient and so cheap that we became isolated from physical reality... we have to work out in order to stay physically fit.

I propose that modern communication has had a similar impact. We've been binging on the conflict-free interactions we enjoy, but we haven't been eating our veggies or working out. This is a mental "obesity epidemic".

We drive between similarly minded social gatherings. We keep contact with similarly minded people by calling them. We're in constant communication with our social groups with little time for disruptive ideas to slip in... each of us is deeply connected to our pocket of the world, but many of us are equally disconnected from the rest of the world.

seanisko• 10 years ago

I agree with these statements. Debate has become an offensive action many will go to great lengths to avoid.

neffy• 10 years ago

While I'm not disagreeing, the historical record suggests that there's nothing new about an increasingly divided society. Or vociferous exchanges of view for that matter. We are not, and have never been, a tame species.

laredo312• 10 years ago

Technology just amplifies human nature. The open-minded minority use technology to broaden their horizons in an unprecedented way.

My guess is that open-mindedness must be cultivated from a young age by exposing kids to a wide-variety of cultures/ideas.

rorykoehler• 10 years ago

It felt very ironic up-voting you.

ethbro• 10 years ago

I blame Starbucks.

Say what you want about holiday themed drinks, but the coffee shop, bar, and church are essentially the only mass, small-town American discussion forums. And I'd say only the first tended to really breed in-depth conversations between unlikeminded neighbors.

Coffee chains could give two shits about inspiring conversation. In fact, it's downright bad for business (at best more seating requirement, at worst danger of disagreement). So it's optimized away.

rationalhero• 10 years ago

Environment is continuously changing. There are infinite agents in the nature causing that change. Human being is one of them, technology developed by human is another. At the end fittest (not to confuse with physical fitness) survives.

baby• 10 years ago

so far I think technology has made the problem worse

I think this statement is completely untrue. Compare to how people were divided around the world a hundred years ago.

Technology has gathered people together, but it also makes differences clearer to see.

huangc10• 10 years ago

Technology has gathered people together, but it also makes differences clearer to see.

Doesn't the last part of your comment contradict your entire comment? Imagine gathering a hundred people together and making the differences between each person clear. Instead of uniting everyone, what will ensue is hatred. Shouldn't the point be to find a common ground and not focus on our differences?

aethertron• 10 years ago

Through technology, groups of people have gathered together virtually. I think this is to the detriment of improved relationships between people physically, geographically closer together. The internet lets would-be community-builders act as if geography doesn't matter. But it does.

Brakenshire2• 10 years ago

“Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.”

matwood2• 10 years ago

My conclusion from my recent experiences over the last year or so with the election and before (and volunteering/organizing volunteers therefor) is that people don't just need to communicate, we need to interact, and my observation is that this needs to happen (or at the very least works best) face to face.

I agree. People are much more civil face to face. It also helps in a disagreement to see body language and facial expressions. If I'm trying to argue a point and see someone getting visibly upset then I may change my tact or soften the moment for a bit. This is so much harder to do over the internet.

m_fayer• 10 years ago

I agree. And as someone who works with telemedicine, I can say that even video pales in comparison to in person.

Our body language reading machinery is weak and ignorable when a person is reduced to a small 2 dimensional image, let alone text. And it's the signals that this machinery produces that trigger empathy. Without it, and especially when talking to strangers, it's easy to slip into a mild kind of psychopathy.

acchow• 10 years ago

Stephen Colbert last night: "Politics used to be something we thought about every 4 years. That's good that we didn't think about it that much, because it left room in our lives for other things and OTHER PEOPLE"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXhFGO8R7aU

ideonexus• 10 years ago

I really appreciated Colbert's words that night, but I don't know how true his quote was. There was a great article I read a decade ago that I could never find again about, "How People Talk About Politics," and it matched my own experience.

Standing in long lines at the DMV in Virginia in 2000-something, a man says to me, "See what happens when you let the Democrats run things?"

Watching the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, a woman told me, "My grandmother said this would happen. She said the economy always collapses under Republicans."

Working IT at the Coast Guard for ten years, people talked politics all the time. All of that talk about as informed as the quotes above, but I try not to think less of people who are misinformed. Politics is hard. It's complicated, but we are all expected to participate in it and try to stay informed while most of us are unaware of how much or cognitive biases cause us to misunderstand and misremember the things we learn about the whole complex morass that is almost entirely run by lawyers.

For me, this election is now an exercise in compassion. I overheard two coworkers talking yesterday about how they both voted for Trump because they hated Clinton so much. What surprised me was the tone of fear and uncertainty in their voices at having won. They want what's best for America, just like their political opponents do, and they honestly thought their candidate was the better choice--with strong reservations. My life is great at the moment, so I sincerely hope their candidate delivers what they feel is missing in their own lives.

loorinm• 10 years ago

Great idea, trying to use it but it seems broken. Chat cuts off after two lines. Have tried it about 10 times. Please fix?

teleclimber• 10 years ago

Came across this paper this AM regarding the attempts to get non-alike people to mingle:

"In this paper, we hypothesize, first, that previous approaches have not worked because they have been direct -- they have tried to explicitly connect people with those having opposing views on sensitive issues."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00481

alexrigler• 10 years ago

Really like the idea. Messages wouldn't go through though after a few interactions and couldn't submit a bug.

There is clearly a need for dialogue after such a divisive campaign, it would be even better before people cast ballots though. The media clearly don't help facilitate interaction between different elements of society, but rather act as an echo chambers for a lot of people. Whether it is The Guardian, Washington Post or Fox News and Breitbart. I'm British and was surprised by Brexit, however this didn't catch me by surprise. Such a huge disconnect has formed in both the US and UK. Although there are valid concerns as to how we implement dialogue the potential is huge. If we don't take these attempts seriously we risk becoming so polarised that ugly outcomes will be guaranteed.

apathy• 10 years ago

Why do I have to be "for" or "against" anything?

Why can't people evaluate the evidence and THEN decide?!?

It feels like these sorts of things make polarization worse.

didibus3• 10 years ago

That would require time and effort, and it would force you to actually think and reason, which is a tiring activity and costly to your body. So in other words, ain't nobody got time for that.

sevilo• 10 years ago

exactly, in so many situations, why do we have to make things black or white? this is exactly what creates "us" vs "them".

TheOtherHobbes• 10 years ago

Because many people don't evaluate evidence. They join and defend tribal positions where one side is completely right. and the other side is completely wrong.

The details of the argument don't matter. It's pure identity politics and herd affiliation.

I've been exploring some of the politics groups on FB, and the level of interaction in many groups is middle school level. There are a lot of juvenile insults, preachy testimonials to a particular view - usually one that loudly insults the other side - and a lack of interest in nuance, evidence, or curiosity.

HN may not be perfect, but you don't get many comments here that simply say "The other side sucks."

I don't know if it's even possible to move past that. A primary problem seems to be that the concept of evidence-based reasoning is completely alien and exotic to many voters. It looks very much as if they're literally not able to use their minds in that way. Instead of trying to understand an issue they repeat the same insults and cliches over and over for a quick emotional hit which satisfies them they've won the argument.

The Internet - and FB - is terrible for this, because it's much easier and quicker to type a one-sentence put down than to craft an argument.

You can try to fix this by banning flames and trolling, but then a lot of the people you're trying to persuade go elsewhere for their hit.

I have no idea what a solution would look like, or where to start looking for one.

clock_tower2• 10 years ago

Was it Petrarch who argued against Scholasticism on the grounds that an uneducated plowman natively reasons in syllogisms? How wrong he was...

prawn• 10 years ago

Can FB/Twitter be somewhat effective if you've broken down a debate to tiny points, and gradually find common cause or identify real issues?

The alternative is giant blocks of text which are off-putting to many, harder to parse, hard to find time for, etc.

inimino3• 10 years ago

The tool seems to be intended for those who are already polarized and don't have much interaction with those on the other side.

RankingMember• 10 years ago

If the experience I'm having is any indication (very clunky, conversation works 50% of the time), I think you might want to iron things out a bit more before a Show HN like this.

avitzurel• 10 years ago

There are two problems I see with this.

I had 3 conversations.

ME: Hi Other side: Hello

That's it. stopped working

trump4564• 10 years ago

I like this idea, but unfortunately the site is broken. Made a throwaway account - I voted for Trump, want to talk about it?

electic2• 10 years ago

Another app I would like to suggest is Placecot. It allows you to post to neighborhoods and places nearby. So post to your local coffee shop or neighborhood and have a discussion. Better yet, meet those people in person. Part of the problem with society is we are all in filtered bubbles and no one meets and talks anymore.

You can find it on the app store here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/placecot/id1024884410?mt=8

I hope your journey meeting humans is as eye opening as mine has been. P.S. I am the founder. Feedback welcome.

Neliquat• 10 years ago

Feedback: Apple only? Not interested in walled gardens.

electic2• 10 years ago

It will come for Android as well but probably next year. Thanks for the feedback.

emmelaich• 10 years ago

It requests connections on port 8080 as well.

This may inhibit its use from some people behind a corporatish proxy/firewall.

stevens32• 10 years ago

Great idea! We really have to work on not demonizing the 'other side'. I spent some time during the primaries trying to read through subreddits of supporters for the opposite candidate, trying to understand where they were coming from. That didn't work very well.

Learning to disagree constructively is a really important skill that we don't often get a chance to work on.

dschiptsov• 10 years ago

there is 4chan for that.

ue_• 10 years ago

4chan is an echo chamber, especially /pol/. The other echo chamber is 8chan's /leftypol/. What's good about them is that if you're a rightwinger you can go to /leftypol/and if you're a leftie you can go to /pol/.

antisthenes• 10 years ago

It would be nice if it worked for more than 2-3 messages at a time.

kristopolous2• 10 years ago

I've had a far more elaborate idea incubating for at least 8 years... I have many mockups, some pocs and a bunch of notes if someone is interested.

There's no plans for capital extraction so there's no money...

jnicholasp• 10 years ago

I'm interested in at least the elevator pitch. What's your basic idea?

kristopolous2• 10 years ago

I don't know if you'll see this but email me. Use my hn handle @ yahoo and I'll write it up. I'll need to write this document eventually if I want it to be a reality.

JDiculous• 10 years ago

I like the idea, but the chat doesn't work. The first message will send, but after that it freezes. I press escape twice to disconnect and nothing happens.

b_bellomo• 10 years ago

Same for me. Too bad, the idea is cool.

beatpanda4• 10 years ago

Let me tell you why dialogue doesn't work in this case:

Now discussing Donald Trump Now Talking with nigger lyncher nigger lyncher's Description: i love to lynch niggers

That conversation is over before it can start. I'd rather fight these idiots in the streets for the next 4 years than make any type of attempt at dialogue.

yetanotherjosh2• 10 years ago

You're dealing with a troll there, not an idiot. A troll.

benmcnelly2• 10 years ago

Gah! I can't get a conversation to stay connected. So many cool people I would love to keep talking to. Is there an alternative that is not getting HN hugged?

ywecur• 10 years ago

It doesn't work on Firefox

kzisme• 10 years ago

Neat idea - but messages would not send and hitting escape twice as instructed didn't end the session.

Nick_23847• 10 years ago

idea: interesting, execution: fail

Sir_Cmpwn2• 10 years ago

Whipped this up, should be more reliable:

https://tesm.sircmpwn.com

Code here, feel free to use it for mest: https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm

benkaiser• 10 years ago

Knew your name looked familiar, thanks for your awesome work on Sway!

Sir_Cmpwn2• 10 years ago

No problem, I'm glad you like it!

bArray• 10 years ago

Feature request: Need to know when somebody is actively speaking to you.

alexbanks• 10 years ago

I love this idea, but the chat system doesn't appear to work after 1-2 messages.

Jill_the_Pill• 10 years ago

This was also my experience.

agumonkey• 10 years ago

Couldn't connect to a partner. So far it looks like a topic oriented Omegle.

robbizorg3• 10 years ago

Hey everyone, this has been a pretty crazy day for me, and I'm pretty sure it's been crazy for everyone else as all. Sorry for only just responding to everyone on this thread, I've been super busy and have only just gotten a chance to sit down and get to work.

First off, I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback of gotten on the project, both positive and negative. As was revealed by the ton of technical difficulties and ridiculously sized bundle.js file, this was a hashed together project that was more of a proof of concept rather than a final app. Now that I know that there's a lot of interest in at least some sort of app developed along these lines, I'm going to spend a lot of time polishing the site and exactly how one expresses belief "for" or "against" topics or people. I also plan to look into research as posted on how to work against polarization in the country. I pushed a couple changes that should hopefully account for some of the technical problems people were having earlier, but I won't have time until the weekend to dive deep into it.

Secondly, I totally agree with okreallywtf that technology like this has the potential to be great, but so far tech's only made the problem worse. As the interest from HN shows, I think that there's a lot of room for developers to actually go out into more bridge-building type projects that work to get people to interact with those on the "other side." To get moralistic, I think that there's not only room for development here, but that we have the duty to explore these options. We have to prevent division from becoming further entrenched in this country. In this vein, I want to especially point out comments that highlight other sites that try to bring people together and become more informed about government like Placecot and pol.is. Maybe there's still ways that social media and technology can change the ways we interact with people. Perhaps we just have to be more aware of the forces that keep us within our own ideological bubbles.

We have a lot to work to do in this country to try and bring everyone together after this election. Let's see what can be done.

vehementi• 10 years ago

Is there a way I can get in touch with you, just want to bounce some ideas around

robbizorg3• 10 years ago

Not at the moment, I'm going to set up an email for the site over the weekend

eneifert• 10 years ago

I would love to see something like this for broader issues and I see two big benefits.

1) I think it could be really helpful to bloggers. If I wrote a post on a divisive topic, I would love to have it reviewed by respected people who are on the other side (not sure exactly how you would work out the respected part). When we write it's too easy for us to build up a scarecrow argument then knock it down to the delight of those who already agree with us. For example imagine a metric that showed how much people who disagree with the article respect it anyways. If I saw something like that on my Facebook feed I would be more likely to read it.

2) A place for us to get experience on how to debate better. There are a number of principles that a site like this could promote. For example, when you disagree with someone ask a question you actually want the answer to, then talk about it. It sounds easy but it can only become a habit with deliberate practice. I have seen a number of other TED talks that go over these kinds of things.

schoen4• 10 years ago

There are a number of principles that a site like this could promote.

One list is

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

I can also recommend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

although I'm not positive of its educational value. :-)

Edit: This version of the sketch has what I find to be kind of pointless violence at the end.

grzm2• 10 years ago

Also

- Crocker's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288

- Principle of Charity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600

- Rapaport's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692

neo2006• 10 years ago

I'm not US citizen but I follow US politics closely and from where I stand you guys (democrats) will not be able to do much about the situation now, you lost and you need to wait for the next election to give it a fight. And let me tell you, people who voted for Trump in 4 years from here will feel betrailed again and will flip to the other side (yours). This situation happened before in other countries and it always have the same outcome. at least 50% of Trump promisses are populist and infaisable, if you add on top of that his lack of experience, diplomacy and his bad temper after 4 years no one will want to vote for him or any other republican. So understanding the other side is not critical here, they will understand by them selves.

mirimir• 10 years ago

Seems to be no "ambivalent" option on Mest :(

juanmacuevas• 10 years ago

wow! last night I got inspired to create exactly this concept while watching this interview https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...

readhn• 10 years ago

I think the concept of having a single person - President, being head of the country is outdated.

We do not need a President. This ancient concept has to go. We have congress, senate, house of reps, judges, courts. Enough to make decisions and develop policies.

There would be less drama without President in America.

obj-g• 10 years ago

Ah yes, bringing people together by dividing them into two groups.

yetanotherjosh2• 10 years ago

This concept is a troll haven. Politically motivated trolls have become a rampant problem online. I think they are the single biggest obstacle to the progress social media (in the broadest definition, which includes this project here) can effect towards non-partisan goals like empathy and factuality. How will you deal with this issue?

Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

Related Stories