Introduction

Part I: The Current Situation

When someone says 'a complicated problem', the first thing that comes to mind is exact sciences like STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). They use plenty of difficult terms, long formulas and complicated appliances. To make progress in these domains it is usually required to spend the career studying a very narrow aspect. Also it often requires a natural talent or a substantial effort of a highly qualified team. It is very rare to see similar approach to problems in the human science domain. To give examples of such problems: do we need freedom, do we need privacy, should we help the people in need, should we create immigrant programmes, or should we rather protect ourselves and our culture from dilution and keep the borders closed, should the state finance healthcare and free higher education, should we work as hard as we can, or maybe spend as much time as possible simply enjoying the life, is the AI a blessing that the generations were waiting for, or a grave threat to the current economy, should we fight the discrimination and if so, how should we do it, which political party is right and which is wrong, and finally: how to live a good life. These questions are typically addressed by poets, religious leaders, politicians, personal coaches and influencers. Many of them make valuable contribution. Others, rely solely on manipulation techniques. The problem is that nowadays it is difficult to distinguish the former from the latter. There is little dialogue. There is no continuity of research of given problems. Therefore, no progress is made.

There are two main causes of this problem:

1. Contrary to exact sciences, here we have no means of effective verification of a proposed solution.

2. The solutions of these problems are not objective.

There is a pressure on the human science to stay objective and have its findings verifiable. This has first led to the adoption of social study method which consists of giving 100 participants a survey with questions like 'how, according to you, we should live'. Then a more modern method emerged, which promotes data-driven approach, which uses plenty of arbitrary metrics. Both approaches solve the problem of objectivity and measurability very well. At the same time, both inevitably oversimplify the complexity of the original problem and twist its meaning. The objective and verifiable approach is not possible, due to the very nature of these problems. That means, that as we try to retain the objectiveness we naturally slightly change the studied problem. Instead of trying to study the problem of 'should the social media platform be moderated and censored, or should they allow freedom of speech', we turn to study almost identical problem of 'what is the history of social media platform moderation approaches'. The latter is objective, quantifiable and verifiable. Though it is the former that we need to find an answer to urgently, but we are lacking methods, procedures or platforms to do that reliably.

Wisława Szymborska, laureate of Nobel Prize in Literature, has once said 'there are no questions more urgent than the naïve ones'. Despite of a broad acceptance of this view it seems that we made no progress in the area of naïve questions in the last 40 years since that statement was made. Instead, it became a widespread opinion, that these kind of questions have no good answers and that any answer is equally good. That approach is taking the due respect away from the people who are trying to make progress in this domain. It pushes them to the role of nice artists, whom we can give some attention on a Friday evening, provided that their poems are witty and rhyme and provided that there was no new episode of the adventures of Marvel heroes released recently on a streaming platform.

It is untrue that all answers are equal. Without doubt there are better ones and worse ones. The problem is that it is easy to defend an objective thesis which we could verify before publication and it is not easy to be the face of a subjective hypothesis which is expected to be constantly questioned. It is the fear of taking responsibility which repels people from publicly making a stand.

In our daily lives we are regularly forced to make decisions which directly depend on our answers to difficult, subjective questions. To do this, we typically rely on the norms of our society and of the group of people who we know personally. How can we know though that these solutions are good and aligned with our values? We do not concentrate on this, trusting that someone else, wiser than us, does that better than we do. It is an excuse to transfer the responsibility of our decisions away from us. Different cultures and groups often came to contradictory conclusions. The followers of religion A are saddened by the shallowness and short-sightedness of the followers of religion B.

Yet another argument, that our views do not matter as it is the big corporations and politicians who make the decisions and carry the responsibility, is the nail in the coffin of independent thinking. That all we can do is to play our role, which means being a good consumer and a good citizen. Not to make problems, not to ask difficult questions, not to rock the boat, but to nod agreeably.

To summarise:

1. We are lacking effective methods of exploring difficult questions.

2. We are confident that there is no need to pursue such questions, because all the answers are equally good.

3. When we need to take a stand, we copy that of our group.

4. We transfer all the responsibility to institutions.

In this light, it is no wonder that we are such an easy target for the populist politics, charlatans, manipulative advertisers, or influencers.

Part II: What We Want to Achieve

The previous part was about objective world. It might be right or wrong, but it is trying to picture the objective situation. The second part is the opposite. Everyone can have their own goals, dreams and feelings. We are presenting here our own desired situation, hoping that it may inspire you. It might be that your own will be similar to ours. And if they are, then the third part may be useful.

We want to have tools to help us dive into complicated, subjective problems.

We want to have a better understanding of our own views.

We want to be more resistant to manipulation.

We want this awareness to be easily available to people if they want it.

We want to make the job of populists, manipulators and conman more difficult.

Part III: How to Do That

It is not enough to only signal the problem if we want to see any progress. This is one thing which we always had in abundance. We must make a step further. We need to:

1. Start from looking at the problem itself. Discuss observations with others. This part is relatively easy, as it relates to the objective state of the world. Seek counter examples, other perspectives and proves if available.

2. Reflect on what your desired situation is. In this part, everyone can have their own views and feelings and they are all valid. Let us not underestimate this part, as it is the foundation for further steps.

3. Think about different ways to achieve the desired situation. Choose the most promising solution and make it a current hypothesis. Shere it widely with others, exchange its pros and cons, seek other perspectives. If any of them convinces you, update the working hypothesis.

Whenever we have a decision to make, or an opinion to take, we naturally feel what our preferred choice is. We can, however, try to contemplate on the reasons for that feeling. This contemplation may lead us to our deeper convictions, which we can continue to analyse. At some point, we reach a place, where we are unable to explain a given feeling any further than just that we feel that it is right. Those are our axioms, our fundamental feelings.

The deeper we manage to travel this ladder into more and more basic feelings, the more likely we are to better understand ourselves and make fewer contradicting decisions. It will also allow us to discuss our opinions with others in a way, where both interlocutors can learn something from each other.

This is our hypothesis. This is why we created this portal: to help this very process to take place. We believe that thought exchange has real impact on our mutual views. We believe that deepening the understanding of our views makes sense. We believe that the voice of a single person does have impact on the public debate and on politicians. That it can impact the big companies and force them to adjust their approach.

We do not subscribe to the view that only experts should solve the complicated problems. The experts should show us their reasoning and try to convince us, instead of using their authority to apply pressure on us to agree with them. Once again then, we welcome you on this journey to explore the complicated world and invite you to do this with us.