Candid
Our current project is Candid, a chat app designed to poll people and match them up one-on-one to talk about their values.
Cards of different types are presented to the user and they interact by swiping:
- Left – Disagree
- Right – Agree
- Up – Chat
- Down – Pass/Unsure
They’re able to compare how they answered questions to others and are grouped on ideological similarity.
Users can chat with other users about the topics one-on-one. They can figure out areas of agreement by agreeing on shared statements which provides a base of agreement to build upon. Talking one-on-one reduces the social pressure to appear strong and forces people to direct their arguments towards the person they’re talking to.
Click through the slides to see how the app is structured. Clicking in the black area will highlight interactive elements.
This project is first because it can be used on its own to improve discussion and because the ideological coordinates will be used elsewhere in the digital democracy system.
Users are presented with cards written by other users displaying normative political statements. Users can swipe on these cards to indicate agreement, disagreement, or no response. These responses are used to categorize the user’s political positions. Users have the ability to initiate a discussion on a statement from another user. When in a discussion, users can propose “agreed upon statements” to build up an argument for their position from a shared understanding of values and truth. Users may send “kudos” to other users at mutually agreed-upon end of a discussion, which are used to evaluate user trust.
The intent is to align incentives in discussion toward the end of civil discussion. “Civil discussion” does not mean “non-contentious” or “disinterested,” but rather discussion in which energy is directed towards arguing on the merits of issues.
In the current electronically-mediated social environment, there are many impediments to effective communication, each of which is addressed by Candid:
| Problem | How it’s addressed |
|---|---|
| Users direct argumentation towards onlookers rather than intending to convince the other party | Conversations on Candid occur purely person-to-person, making appealing to third party observers pointless. |
| Users attempt to quickly discredit others without meaningful engagement with others arguments | One-on-one conversation that only ends by mutual agreement makes this technique ineffective – it results in a loss of trust |
| Arguments are often not convincing to others because they are premised on beliefs the other party does not share | “Agreed-upon statements” encourage users to negotiate which beliefs they share and argue from a basis of shared facts, positions, and values |
| Lack of sustained engagement makes it difficult to view others as individuals, rather than embodiments of their ideological positions | Continued conversation with no outside observers means each side is incentivized to appeal to their opponent rather than their allies, requiring an attempt to understand the opponent’s beliefs and values |
| People with different political views are viewed with suspicion because they cannot be trusted to engage in a civil manner | Trust ratings and discussion calming practices make it easier to trust that opponents will maintain some degree of civility |