Plurality Question @FtCTokyo
ikehara_y Talking with @nishio gave me a better understanding of Plurality and Broad Listening philosophy (Thank you for your answer even though I asked you point-blank about possible problems)
nishio I would be very grateful if you could take notes on what we talked about! I'll write to Tiki Ritsu.
ikehara_y Q: Is the idea of Plurality really leaving no one behind? A: It is important to note that while the number of people who will not be left behind may not reach zero, fewer people will be left behind than if the current measures continue as they are. Also, it is conceivable that by incorporating IT, people will become accustomed to IT
ikehara_y Q: How does Broad Listening's division between the listener and the listened to address the issue? A: Broad Listening makes the data public. If the listener ignores the problem, everyone will know that the problem exists, yet everyone will know that they did not address it
nishio Technology that facilitates understanding the masses, such as broad listening, can be monopolized by the top or released to the people. The technology itself is neutral and can be used for good or ill. If top management monopolizes it, we will end up with a surveillance society. So the Plurality direction is to make the results as open data and transparent as possible. nishio There is a benefit to this on the part of the government as well. For example, if someone makes a claim against the government and the government doesn't act immediately, traditionally it tends to fall back on conspiracy theories like "my claim was ignored" or "I was silenced" or "it's inconvenient and has been suppressed by power". It is important to see that there are many others. nishio Government resources are not infinite and cannot react instantly to every individual voice (unless more advanced AI-like systems are developed). ikehara_y Q: Are you saying that cognitive expansion is the key? A: Yes
ikehara_y Q: How do you deal with conflicting groups regarding policy? A: There are cases where digging deeper into the discussion reveals that it is not a conflict without a point of agreement. Such was the case in Taiwan. In order to understand what each other's problems are, it is important to visualize them through Broad Listening.
nishio Even when demands are superficially in conflict, if we clarify the ideal direction (values) that we want to achieve through these demands (means), we can actually find ideas that can bridge the divide. In fact, ideas that can bridge the divide can be found. Conflicts are opportunities for cooperation to find "bridging ideas," so do not avoid looking at them, but dig them out. ikehara_y Thoughts: I thought that Broad Listening for Conflict Resolution was also discussed in anthropologist David Graeber (not brought up in the conversation, but in Anarchism in Life). I thought it has something in common with the consensus-building process that aims for unanimity in principle, rather than majority rule, as discussed by the anthropologist David Graeber (not mentioned in the conversation, but also discussed in Keiichiro Matsumura's Anarchism in Life). ---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/Plurality質疑@FtCTokyo using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.