Why do we need Discussion Maps - GROK Maps?

The GROK dilemma -

our cognitive processes evolved to jump very quickly to convincing, digital, towards and away from, decisions, on the basis of;

personal past experience,

cultural / group framing,

and inadequate noisy current information.

this is an amazing evolved ability, but as soon as we become 'for or against' anything - our perception gets seriously distorted;

we focus on some things and ignore others,

we look for confirmation - not contradiction,

when we try to take a wider view - our memory recall processes prioritize the very things we have been paying attention to recently - the things we already find important - which reinforces the 'for or against' bias - and further distorts the 'weighting' we give to things. This is the reason behind a large class of weighting biases - such as the base line fallacy,

if groupthink kicks in (which it usually does) - our perception can be further distorted - to enable acceptance of group approved models - this can be very very powerful and hard to admit to,

plus our evolved visceral group-membership moral intuitions fire off (read Jonathan Haidt), care harm, order chaos, in-group loyalty, (gossip) reciprocity cheats freeloaders and treason, justice fairness and proportionality, authority and submission - respecting good and deposing incompetent leaders, group sanctity / disgust - to facilitate bonding around a shared story/theory/model.

What goes wrong with discussion?

most of the time we are not actually listening -

we are busy comparing snippets against our preexisting mental models - judging - dismissing - agreeing,

if the speaker and the (not) listener are operating in the same value system - the same belief system - then some benefit may be possible. One or both of them may be able to improve their model of the world through discussion -

but if the speaker and the not listener are operating under different (incompatible and hidden) belief/value systems then one person's 'for' distortions may clash with the other person's 'against' distortions - and very little progress will be made.

One thinks x is a symptom, another thinks it is a cause, and therefore, a control to be adjusted or outlawed.

If that is the situation - then it is better to discuss and explore their underlying belief systems about what is important and why, and how things work (what causes what) - get these value-belief-models out in the open.

Then you can at least understand why you analyze the situation differently - and come up with different solutions.

most discussions are not a holistic process - don't address the whole emergent big picture - or all points of view;

we try to persuade each other with an emotive focus on some small isolated part of the situation,

this makes it hard to look at the emergent properties of the whole system,

people use rhetorical tricks to,

distort the analysis - impose their preferred frames, anchors, ideological focus and blinkers - and ignore or dismiss others,

we are alert for group membership signifiers (one of us? - not one of us!) - and dehumanizing them-and-us kicks in - you are wrong and I / We are right. Frankly I just don't care what you say, or what you think, or what evidence you think you have, or how you grok the world,

it is hard to remember and process everything - it takes time to mentally piece the bits together, spot the omissions, consider the implications, and in the mean time the 'conversation' has moved on. Have you noticed how some party propagandists don't pause at full stops anymore - making sure there is no time to think through or challenge the obvious errors and omissions in their last sentence.

This is why we need Discussion Maps, GROK Maps,

and a mind set that prioritizes understanding and exploration over persuasion.