Deliberation is thoughtful, structured discussion that comprehensively incorporates diverse factors, perspectives, and human needs.
Engaging in deliberation requires a level of meta-consciousness—an awareness of how we think, communicate, and structure dialogue. In USHIN, shapes and visual connection labels replace typical text-heavy terms to facilitate clear questioning, explanation, and shared reasoning.
Core Requirements of an Ideal Deliberation System
Transparency & Accountability
- Supported Validity: Valid deliberation is transparently backed and verifiably supported.
- Public Accountability: Trustworthy systems display clear, public accountability.
- Collaborative Evaluation: Public deliberation provides tools to collaboratively grade, vet, and score information.
Neutrality, Control & Inclusivity
- User-Driven Metrics: Neutral, inclusive deliberation gives individuals and groups direct control over weighting, measures, and information sources.
- Respectful & Just: Deliberation includes everyone involved, prioritizing human needs, feelings, and concerns up front.
- Tailored Findings: Relevant deliberation allows users to specify findings to fit their exact context.
Sound Logic & Rigor
- Sound Logic: Deliberation relies on sound logic (as evaluated by users) and eliminates common fallacies such as false dichotomies and straw man arguments.
- Comprehensive Scope: Sound deliberation weighs all factors relevant to an issue.
- Mitigating Bias: Structural mapping allows tangential relationships to surface, helping participants identify and address confirmation bias.
Ubiquity, Comfort & Flexibility
- Multi-Platform Reach: Deliberation occurs both face-to-face and across diverse online platforms, with seamless cross-venue discovery and real-time translation.
- Adaptability: Systems remain flexible to meet evolving user needs over time.
- Constructive Environment: A comfortable, secure atmosphere encourages self-reflection and thoughtful participation.
Elements of Reasoning & Intellectual Standards
Adapted from the Foundation for Critical Thinking Community.
- State Purpose & Position
- Clearly define terms, primary intent, and overall scope.
- Distinguish primary goals from related purposes.
- Evaluate whether goals are realistic, checking periodically to stay on track.
- Deconstruct the Problem or Question
- State the central issue clearly and restate it from multiple viewpoints.
- Define precise meanings and deconstruct the issue into component parts.
- Identify Viewpoints & Underlying Assumptions
- Explicitly describe your perspective and evaluate the justifications behind it.
- Analyze how core assumptions shape reasoning, repeating this process for alternative viewpoints.
- Provide & Vet Evidence
- Ensure evidence meets standards of clarity, accuracy, relevance, and sufficiency.
- Include citations, source weightings, and explicit verification methods.
- Examine Concepts & Inferences
- Assess the cogency and consistency of all inferences, interpretations, and conclusions.
- Evaluate Real-World Application & Impact
- Apply conclusions to both specific and general scenarios to test outcome likelihood.
- List all affected stakeholders and map out potential downstream effects.
Practical Facilitation Guidelines
- Focus: Address one question or topic at a time.
- Parking Lot: Park off-topic issues into a queue with a clear plan for future review.
- Respectful Dialogue: Maintain strict timekeeping and strictly prohibit ad hominem attacks.
- Structured Flow: Respond directly to main points to keep discussion threads coherent.
- Preparation: Provide review materials in advance and include disparate viewpoints early.
- Follow-Through: Schedule clear follow-up touchpoints for ongoing review.