I’m sorry, but I think this is exactly wrong. Framing the exchange of evidence as a competition is part of what makes people so irrational in the first place.
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.
This is a version of “what’s the time, Mr Wolf”.
Participants: one “it” and several other players.
Setup:
(IT stands against a wall, eyes closed or blindfold. PLAYERS stand some distance away facing IT.)
IT: “I’m the man who’s found a truth”
PLAYERS: “we don’t believe you”
Repeating round:
PLAYERS “we have bits of evidence” (they take a step forward)
IT (tries to guess where they are by sound, if he does he lunges and touches a PLAYER, and says) “I refute you” (he only gets one lunge per round)
Repeat the round until either
the PLAYERS sneak up behind IT, “we have N bits of evidence and you’re wrong” (they lunge, touch IT and he loses)
IT touches the last PLAYER with a lunge “I refute you all”, and he wins
I’m sorry, but I think this is exactly wrong. Framing the exchange of evidence as a competition is part of what makes people so irrational in the first place.
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.