This format of discussion is inaccessible and exclusionary
I'm a high IQ auto didact polymath.
The one subject I was not good at was writing essays about social subjects.
I find that instead of being fact based, scientifically accessible and judged on logic and accuracy, they were deeply personal, and unless I was able to get into the mind fot he person marking them, I was often negatively judged and accussed of holding certain opinions simply because my viewppoints differed.
this format reminds me deeply of that. We can already see fracture and dissent, and people pick at others for failures in style or content or position.
whilst I undertand the thought behind it, I feel strongly that this is a massive failure in communication, and advances made in the psychology of client engagment have been thrwon away and an ideological attempt made to shohorn an inherently face to face open disucssion into an ill suited domain.
I came here becaue I saw an andert that purported to ask me about tikanga in healthcare, and if it mattered to me, yes or no
that question does not exist. that advert was misleading.
How about the people running this break this up into several statges, first finding out the key issues, then canvassing opinions on them. you know, the way that has been developed quite well already
Why the contribution is important
it is important as this interface of communication is not inclusive, and excludes a huge number of people form all walks of life, from having meaningful input at an important time
by flowirin on March 21, 2023 at 03:48PM