Digital Democracy Elena, Yasmeen, Teresa, and Gamliel Our focus is - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Digital Democracy

Elena, Yasmeen, Teresa, and Gamliel

Our focus is on eliciting efgective discussion/debate on controversial topics

1

Initial POVS

2

We met...Nile, a left-leaning man in his 20’s We were amazed to realize that...Nile cares almost as much about the comments people write as he does about the actual news as reported by the media. It would be game-changing to... enable people to build opinions together around particular news articles or issues

Initial POVS

3

We met… Ashwin, in 40s, works at Google, doesn’t engage with news outlets at all We were amazed to realize that… he does not engage with news outlets because he feels like they are either manipulative or just pure noise It would be game-changing to… make him feel like his own views are safe or aren’t targeted while engaging with currents events and news sources

Initial POVS

4

We met Kendall, a liberal woman in her 20’s with a conservative boyfriend We were amazed to realize that despite her saying she likes to check ‘different sources’ for news, when asked to demonstrate, she said she only really checks one It would be game-changing to reduce the daily effort it takes to actually read and be informed from different sources.

Our process

Interviews + New POVs HMW + Solutions Prototypes

5

Mac: Man in early 20s, Stanford Junior in MCS,

did debate competition in high school

• Motivated to educate himself after positive

conversation with dad about immigration (despite differing opinions)

• Believes that people’s views aren’t challenged

enough in general

• Feels that there are few people he can safely talk

to who don’t share his opinion

6

“Political debate is often more

• f an echo chamber due to the

size of the internet and geographical demographics, you never really have to talk to people who disagree with you”

7

Fatima: Woman in her mid 20s, Stanford

graduate student, Muslim

• Coworker expressed confusion about an aspect
• f Islam and gave unsolicited opinion - unfruitful

conversation

• Contrasts disagreements with family with great

conversations with supposedly different people

• Values intellectual open-mindedness more than

similarity and believes that both people should be winners in a conversation

8

“I would only be open to debating if I was genuinely interested in the topic, know it well, and the other person wants to listen as much as they want to talk”

9

Hira: Young professional in her 20s, in tech

• Avoids conversations about politics and religion

at all costs

• Feels that she gets put in a box and labeled like

when she expresses her opinion or religious belief

• Was able to change mom’s viewpoint on

marriage issue, but doesn’t engage with her uncle on anything

10

“I expect people I know to have a certain level of ethics and morality, and I care to know nothing beyond that”

11

New POVs

What leaps did we make?

12

We met… Mac, a Stanford Junior in MCS who has a background in debate. Amazed to find out… Mac doesn’t usually learn anything about the other side during the debates he has with people. It would be game changing to… create a debating environment where the driving force and goal is learning from the other side.

13

We met… Fatima, a Muslim Stanford grad student in her mid 20s. Amazed to find out… Finds adversarial debate (debate for the purpose of your perspective “winning”) to not be worthwhile. It would be game changing to… Redefine debate as a process of self-discovery.

14

We met… Hira, a young professional Amazed to find out… that she does not even start to debate with a person due to her belief they will either shut her down or that it will result in conflict and

• fgense

It would be game changing to… remove the feeling of discomfort that precedes stating an opinion

15

HMW

What questions did we decide to answer?

16

How might we make argument a team sport with only one team?

17

How might we make the goal of an argument be to understand the other side the best?

18

How might we make controversial discussions less taboo or intimidating?

19

20

Experience Prototypes

What did we learn from seeing our solutions in action?

21

Goal: Try to get people to look at a debate more holistically rather than one side vs other. Assumptions:

1. Competing against yourself is a satisfying and rewarding endeavor 2. People will supply both sides of an argument even if it’s at odds with their position

22

• 1. One-sided debate

Description

• One or more people on team
• Choose a starting position and

three arguments in favor of position

• Generate as many

counter-arguments or supporting arguments as possible for each argument, and repeat

23

Artifacts: Blank index cards, a pen, and green/red crayons

24

User Goal: Make tree as large as possible (More leaf nodes means position is more nuanced and better-informed)

25

• Exercise stalled with one person, two was better
• People generally prefer to flesh a subject out

with another person

• People are incentivized to think of the opposing

viewpoint when their self-view is at stake (tree imbalance)

Results

Validity of Assumptions

1. Competing against yourself is a satisfying and rewarding endeavor -> NOT VALIDATED 2. People will supply both sides of an argument even if it’s at odds with their position -> VALIDATED

26

• 2. Building the stakes

Description

• 3 mini-debates with Elena,

starting with the lowest stakes and ending with the highest stakes

• For each debate,

participant chooses topic from list of 3

• Small paper taken away

after first two rounds

27

Artifacts: 3 lists, coin, small piece

• f paper

Participant: Denise, Stanford Junior

• Denise reported a positive, non-jarring

experience, cited “lowball theory”

• Mix of random and controllable factors

made her feel comfortable without everything being predictable

• When “it’s my turn” paper was removed,

she substituted it with nearby napkin

28

Results

Validity of Assumptions

1. Low-stakes conversations are a good way for people to practice and learn about good communication skills - VALIDATED 2. Skills gained in low-stakes conversations carry

• ver to more controversial or heavy topics -

VALIDATED → New assumption: participants like visual cues to remind them of norms

29

• 3. Speaker and Listener

Description

• Choose listener/speaker

roles at random, topic chosen by speaker

• Speaker goals:
• >Improve skills, gauge

emotion

• Listener goals:
• >Understand viewpoint
• >Details about speaker

30

Artifacts: Box of papers saying “speaker” or “listener”. Paper with topic, list of goals Participants: Rodrigo and Titus, Stanford Freshmen

• Speaker chose topic with listener in mind

(they are friends)

• Listener listened patiently and intentionally,

relayed back understanding accurately

• Continued conversation even after

prototype over, had fun with it

31

Results

• Both preferred talking if given the chance and

both wanted chance to reverse roles

• Speaker: first goal good, second not relevant

(topic not charged enough)

• Listener: second goal might be encouraging

listener to analyze speaker rather than empathize with them

32

Results

Validity of Assumptions

1. People will accept roles assigned to them - VALIDATED 2. Listener and speaker goals are fitting and satisfying - PARTIALLY VALIDATED

33

Solution We believe our “one-sided debate” prototype was the most successful because it gave us the best quality

• f information and the most depth

34

Summary

• People can be incentivized to explore
• pposing viewpoints
• People like to work together and feed ofg each
• ther to flesh out arguments
• Building up the stakes of a conversation is a

good way to ease into a tough discussion

35

Any ?’s