So I stumbled onto a youtube video posted by a young girl, in which she dives into a lengthy, circuitous, somewhat nonsensical diatribe about politics, the world, global warming, lots of big issues. There was a lot of sighing in this video — a lot of “how can liberals be such idiots!?!”

Then, of course, a flurry of comments and video responses ensue. The polarization builds and the viral rage spreads. The internet has become a sponge for our country’s anger and frustration. Maybe the release of these feelings is healthy in a way, but productive conversation has not occurred. People are not working out their anger with each other, because the culture discourages it. It is sufficient to continue being angry.

But I do believe people want to understand each other. These issues are not clear cut, the answers are not obvious, and no single group comprising half the population are all idiots—at least I hope not. But I think people lack tools for acknowledging and discussing nuances civilly. We can all be “experts” on a topic, but we must take the time to research and build supporting evidence. Before launching into a rant, most people are not making the effort.

So maybe what’s really missing is an understanding or respect for rational debate? I know I’m pretty terrible at it, but I do respect it as a process that has worked well. Do you think we can somehow introduce a form of interest-based mediation into the youtube dialog, or educate people about how to self-mediate?

I’d like to better understand how Wikipedia covers this, because I think commons-based peer production can be employed to aggregate and interpret evidence for different sides of a particular issue. In a way this might already happen on Wikipedia, but I’m not sure whether Wikipedia’s format (or culture?) is exactly the right thing for this. Wikipedia has one big page for the Armenian Genocide, and even the title of that page is contentious. The big issues that tug on people’s core values may demand a separate space for each facet of the issue, where that particular piece can be fleshed out: history, claims, supporting evidence, etc.

A professor of mine worked with different groups on these really divisive issues, and he found 5th and 6th graders to be among the most thoughtful debaters, because they were willing to listen to the merits of both sides, to recognize difficult grey areas, and to be more flexible with their own core beliefs. So if we want to move the conversation forward, maybe the real goal is to teach adults to be more like 5th graders, or to teach 5th graders to somehow leave open a window in their minds…