Posted on



, ,

Bias Detector for Conflict Resolution

A voiceless ppt animation showing how our Bias Detector helps turning conflicts into collaborations:

The Bias Detector evaluates each party’s positive commitments, providing constructivity scores, improvement tips, and unifying questions. It effectively handles both tense disputes and challenging conflicts.

See also:

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: A Debate on Schoolchildren’s Depression in Lithuania

During a discussion on why schoolchildren in Lithuania often feel depressed, four groups (A, B, C, D) shared their differing views, leading to tension. The full discussion is provided below. Here is a summary of the Bias Detector’s results:

  • Party A (Bias Score: 0.7, Positive Leaning): emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility over collective punishment, arguing that each person should be held accountable for their specific actions. Unspoken question: How do we balance a supportive environment with personal responsibility?
  • Party B (Bias Score: 0.3, Limited Constructivity): a pessimistic view on the simplicity of vocational education or work, aligning more with the pitfalls of over-simplification and over-complication. Unspoken question: How can we guide the younger generation without limiting their independence?
  • Party C (Bias Score: 0.3, Limited Constructivity): partially supports the idea of a balanced education but is dominated by negative aspects, such as an overemphasis on rigorous education and a neglect of quality education. Unspoken question: How can we adapt education to different learning styles while maintaining high standards?
  • Party D (Bias Score: 0.7, Positive Leaning): emphasizes the importance of emotional intelligence and sustainability in education, while acknowledging the role of technology. Unspoken question: How can we design education programs that promote independent learning and provide necessary support?

The unifying question: How can we effectively adapt educational methods to cater to diverse learning styles, support personal responsibility, mentor the younger generation, and help them find purpose while maintaining high standards?

Given the issue’s complexity, addressing it likely requires deep systemic changes, possibly aligning with the more balanced and supportive approaches of Parties A and D.

The original discussion (translated from Lithuanian):

Party A (general comment): do not take one specific case as a universal problem. Responsibility should be to specific individuals for specific actions, not “100 push-ups because a colleague has transgressed”. Specific actions should be publicised and subject to public and strict accountability. To serve as a lesson and an example to others. But others should not be held responsible for the actions of others. We cannot raise a generation of butterflies and dolphins who raise their hands when the going gets tough. It is wrong to allow them to take on the role of victim when it does not concern them.

In Lithuania, we are the ones who are raising the lost generation, however late that may be on a global scale. Butterflies, dolphins, jellyfish – we may or may not nickname them, but we certainly cannot give them that status.

Party B: (To party A), please tell me, where is the LT generation not lost? As far as I have heard, I am also in the lost generation, but I don’t understand how that lostness or foundness is determined.

Party C: Actually, I don’t understand the essence of the problem… if we don’t talk about mobbing and if the stress is caused by school, you can choose a post-10kl vocational school or go to work… the children who should stay in school should be the ones who don’t have the stress of preparing and studying for their lessons…

Party A: (to party C) unfortunately there is a lot of this in schools, but parents have to feel for the children. Change the school if necessary. But you can’t turn an individual case into a universal one.

Party B: (to party C) any simple decision to go to a vocational school or to go to work. It couldn’t be simpler. Ask child psychiatrists and psychologists, most of their clients are sensitive and good learners.

Party C: (to party B) so maybe the problem is not the school, but the parents, who pursue their own goals through the children, not the child’s? Why is everyone so concerned about how the children feel now, why hasn’t anyone analysed how the children felt at the time of the closure of the covid?! I just don’t want to, but I have to think that if somebody has paid attention to a child’s language, then aren’t there hidden agendas behind it…? In any case, easing the curriculum for some is certainly not the solution… and we need to allow those who find it too difficult to choose another path… my son is a 12th grader, the last half of the school year is spent preparing for the VBE, so it is not even interesting and it is too easy to learn mathematics… so why does nobody think about those who find it too easy? In principle I am against making programmes easier, unless our aim is that children should not learn anything when they leave school…

Party D: (to party C) I think our goal should be to raise a healthy and mature young generation. In this case, the standard programmes that were designed for a homogenised society are no longer relevant to the realities of today (some need easier programmes and others perhaps harder ones), only in this case it becomes clear that the old system is not adapted to this model. In any case, every opinion has a right to exist and is important in an inclusive society, where the aim is to listen and to hear those around us. That is the kind of society in which fundamental, not cosmetic, change takes place.

Party C: (to party D) How will you measure the maturity and health of a generation?! And as for today’s realities, it seems that AI will replace many professions, so study, dear ones, and less moaning, study mathematics, physics, programming… you probably won’t believe this, but you can only study AI after you have graduated from a maths degree… so what you think is obsolete and inapplicable will turn out to be the only viable reality… changing the system, as the exam fiasco with the 11th graders has shown, does not do any good… the old system gave free quality education and I am in favour of keeping it… but there are probably some advocates of fee-based education who would like to see the end of free quality education, like in the case of medical education… the trend is noticeable…

Party D: (to party C) You are very mistaken if you think that the future of humanity is all about logic and reason. Man is not just logic, man is also feelings and emotions (that which does not fall under the category of reason). And health and psychological maturity are easy to measure (psychology explains these states). As for new specialties, yes, I agree, many traditional specialties will disappear or will be transformed by AI and other global changes. In the field of sustainability, there is already a need for competences that are not yet widely trained in universities and that unfortunately AI cannot replace today.

Party D: (to party C) I see that we have very different levels of understanding of sustainability (we are not going to get along, or to get along would require a very long discussion of what sustainability means to you and me). I am much deeper into this topic than the allegories you refer to. As I am a graduate in innovation and technology working on circular innovation based on the biological wheel, I had to gather a lot of competences on my own because they were not included in the university curricula (especially systems thinking). And since a sustainable business model is not only about production processes, but also about business management processes (e.g. the horizontal business management model), the theoretical knowledge is even worse – I had to gather empirical knowledge (through work placements in European organisations). I would say that the category of sustainability professional is so broad that it can include a lot of completely different competences and skills needs (ranging from sustainability report writing, circular process architect, horizontal business management skills to e.g. non-violence communication skills).

Party C: (to party D) and I think no matter how nicely you describe your speciality, a few months for a team of programmers and it could be done by an AI… everything that can be described can be changed… remember that an AI is not a simple program, it learns from its mistakes until it makes it perfect…

Party D: (to party C) I wonder why then the circularity index has been declining globally in recent years, while AI has been progressing and its use is increasing? 🤔 Don’t you think it’s a paradoxical situation? I know what AI is, I had a course on it in my Master’s programme, but I know that today AI is not a panacea to solve all the challenges of humanity. At the same time, I think that a balance between living with AI and using human abilities to compensate for the shortcomings of AI could lead to positive results. I am in favour of a middle line (balance), not extremes to one side or the other. 😊

Party C: (to party D) I’m not an expert on the use of raw materials like you, but it says on Google that the circularity index is increasing – as is the share of recycled materials in the economy… so is the index decreasing or increasing? Is it increasing in countries that recycle and decreasing in those that don’t? In the end, it certainly doesn’t mean that these jobs couldn’t be described by a simple program… but the difference is that I think there will soon simply be no AI deficiencies that can be replaced by a human being… it will just need AI support staff…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *