Summary. Every opinion has a positive (subtle) as well as a negative (crude, vicious) side. Opposing opinions only combine their “subtle” sides, complementing each other (“synthesis”) and protecting against hidden vices. This leads to “control statements” which force the opponents to recognize the weaknesses of their positions and the strengths of the opposition(s). This principle has been known since ancient times, but is only now adapted to conflict resolution (see Moral Wisdom from Dialectic). The positive aspects of all points of view are further analyzed in terms of complementarity matrices to identify the root causes of the dispute and its resolution.
Practical application. Let us examine the highly simplified views on deforestation. Identify the main thesis and the antithesis (“selective logging – conservation”), and draw up a table with the possible pros and cons of each. These are the first 4 rows in this table, easily formed by asking targeted questions to ChatGPT. E.g. “what are the cons and pros of selective logging from the climatologist’s perspective?”
The opponents elaborate on these points from their own positions and then make control statements that show the compatibility of views (last two points).
Control statements: Rows 5 and 6 of the table above: a Thesis without a positive side of antithesis, yields its negative side, and vice versa. E.g. “Deforestation without social cohesion leads to social tension, and social cohesion without deforestation leads to economic stagnation”. Or: “deforestation without natural culture yields spiritual degradation, while natural culture without deforestation yields technological lag”.
This should reveal hidden biases and help to find common grounds – see Dialectic Bias (Logging) and Exposing Bias (Vaccination)
Opinion analysis. Ideally, all “control” statements should be accepted not only by the mediator, but also by all opponents. The following matrix of “hybrid statements” can be used for opinion analysis, where each cell represents a hybrid statement: “X without Y leads to Anti-Y”. For example “Profits 1(A) without Renewables (1B) yield Slower tree growth 4(B)”. Green and pink boxes represent acceptable and questionable statements from X’s point of view. This way we can identify topics that require special discussions. Such discussions can be simplified by grouping all Zs into clusters of similar meanings
In the worst case, the opponents will at least be forced to acknowledge the validity of each other’s arguments – something that is far from always achievable today!
“The most important tactic in an argument next to being right is to leave an escape hatch for your opponent so that he can gracefully swing over to your side without an embarrassing loss of face.” ― Stephen Jay Gould
Two Ideologies. All views are usually clustered in just two groups, representing proponents and opponents of the starting thesis. This can be conveniently represented by the “two-party” compatibility matrix. Hear each cell represents probability that a given pair of positive statements will yield synthesis of the better future. Green indicates complementarity, red – incompatibility.
Here we compare two worldviews separated by a diagonal line. The uppermost right represents “dialectical spiritualism”, while the lower left part represents “dialectical materialism”. (The latter was modeled by GPT-4. Earlier GPT versions produced “more materialistic” view, favoring profits 1A and downplaying traditional culture 1E.)
One can see that the “spiritual” view is antagonistic to the profits and “not-rotting” (horizontal red lines 1A and 1c). This is because profits are inseparable from heavy machinery (destruction) and greed, whereas “not-rotting” calls for eradicating older trees, thus preventing restoration of the ancient forests, also destroying habitats of many species and thus suppressing biodiversity.
The “materialistic” view is antagonistic to the concepts of social Wellbeing and Higher Consciousness – see two horizontal and one vertical red lines (3A and 3C). This is because GPT downplays the importance of humanism, representing everything as a “dead mechanic system”.
Each ideology has two claims (denoted by red rows or columns) that could form the basis of negotiations. If one shows some flexibility in their requirements, the other must demonstrate the same.
Understanding the deeper causes. The table on the right explains meanings of all quadrants of the “synthesis matrix”. The 1st quadrant is about combining Logging with Conservation. Both views agree that such a combination is indeed possible. The 2nd and 3rd quadrants are about getting the most out of Logging and Conservation, respectively. GPT suggests that logging is detrimental in both cases, perhaps because logging profits are outweighed by the eco-industry losses. The idealistic (“spiritual”) view gives more plusses to the logging, as it assumes that each tree is selected and cut “by hands”, without using heavy machinery, and preserving ecology.
The last three quadrants estimate the future potential. Again, GPT sees only slight benefits of logging (II-II quadrant), but large problems in Conservation (III-III) and changing lifestyle (II-III). The idealistic “spiritual” view sees everything in “green”, based on a higher belief in human potential.
Conflict Resolution. If all parties agree on general positive statements (L+ and C+), then it is relatively easy to suggest practical steps toward a common “success story”.
Table on the right shows that (L+) must come from alternative livelihoods, like ecotourism and timber replacements (A+). (C+) must come from sustainable logging that prioritizes the health and longevity of the forest (R+).
The point is, that given (L+) and (C+), it is not so difficult to define (A+) and (R+). These can be further analyzed in above-mentioned complementarity matrix, along with (L+) and (C+).
Catalysis. All steps are facilitated if opponents share common emotional experiences, e.g. in joint hikes, team-building or survival practices, pursuing the same goal in independent areas. The harder the challenge, the better.
“Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: What! You too? I thought I was the only one!”
Gamified Analysis. More detailed “success stories” can be designed using the Dialectical Board Game. For each “conflicting case”, one should design specific “action and reflection” cards with descriptions of the consequences (e.g. “will make intellectuals happy, but bureaucrats angry”, “will inspire a love of nature and wean from the comforts, but reduce GDP”, etc.). Such cards can be used for a long time after the solutions have been made, since any solutions need to be refined, and most opponents do not change their convictions, no matter what
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck
“Not-knowing is true knowledge. Presuming to know is a disease.” – Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
“Omnipotence is not knowing how everything is done; it’s just doing it.” – Alan Watts