Much real scientific evidence exchange is a good-hearted competition between academics. You have to want to refute mistakes, but you also have to tolerate losing if you can’t refute the opposition. This was intended to teach both sides.
In my opinion, this is a very Traditional Rationalist way of thinking.
I can think of two ways of dealing with people taking sides in arguments. The first is to encourage each participant to state their opinions in a humble way. This will reduce the loss in status participants experience when they change their mind. The second is to condition participants to believe that correctness should be totally unrelated to status (the final strategy mentioned here).
Your game associates the search for truth with something that is much more clearly a competition. Competitions generally have a large status component associated with them. Thus the game works against successful use of both strategies.
Much real scientific evidence exchange is a good-hearted competition between academics. You have to want to refute mistakes, but you also have to tolerate losing if you can’t refute the opposition. This was intended to teach both sides.
In my opinion, this is a very Traditional Rationalist way of thinking.
I can think of two ways of dealing with people taking sides in arguments. The first is to encourage each participant to state their opinions in a humble way. This will reduce the loss in status participants experience when they change their mind. The second is to condition participants to believe that correctness should be totally unrelated to status (the final strategy mentioned here).
Your game associates the search for truth with something that is much more clearly a competition. Competitions generally have a large status component associated with them. Thus the game works against successful use of both strategies.