There are 8 options and having two nodes seems like there are 4 ways to draw arrows between them.
Might be a bit flawed but in the setting where society has been divided into two factions “blue” and “green” and every issue has the “blue-standard” answer and “green-standard” answer expressing views is made more cumbersome if the actual stance doesn’t align with the faction lines.
Consider two structures for the questionary:
What color is the sky?
bluism
greenism
How should the value of gemstones be evaluated?
bluism
greenism
vs
What color is the sky?
blue
green
What is the most valuable gem?
Saphhire
Emerald
It is a easier to answer green Saphire and blue emerald if one doesn’t need to package them into an ism. Isms are more concrete when its about social groups and who waves which flag.
There are 8 options and having two nodes seems like there are 4 ways to draw arrows between them.
Didn’t say it was just arrows! You can also put corresponds-to signs between them as e.g. panpyschism does, and then there are two ways to reduce it to a one-node diagram. (Also there are 7 options.)
There are 8 options and having two nodes seems like there are 4 ways to draw arrows between them.
Might be a bit flawed but in the setting where society has been divided into two factions “blue” and “green” and every issue has the “blue-standard” answer and “green-standard” answer expressing views is made more cumbersome if the actual stance doesn’t align with the faction lines.
Consider two structures for the questionary:
vs
It is a easier to answer green Saphire and blue emerald if one doesn’t need to package them into an ism. Isms are more concrete when its about social groups and who waves which flag.
Didn’t say it was just arrows! You can also put corresponds-to signs between them as e.g. panpyschism does, and then there are two ways to reduce it to a one-node diagram. (Also there are 7 options.)
The direction would seem to me something that would require even more interpretation and be more ambigious.