This app has you break down information into a cause & effect map, where each node has an implied claim "this node is important" and each edge has an implied claim "the source node <edge name verb, e.g. causes> the target node>. These implied claims each get their own argument map.
Thanks for the feedback. I had intended problems to be seen first to convey motivation, so they're at the top, but I wanted the arrows to point in the direction of causation, so solutions point upward. I agree it's not great, and knowing where to look is a common problem. My latest plan has been to have a more-linear view be primary and the diagram view be secondary (split panes on desktop) in attempts to provide more context for the diagram. Also better diagram views so that it's easier to keep only 5-15 nodes showing at a time, then direction wouldn't matter quite as much.
Thanks for the thoughts. I've dreamt of a version where a conversation could be recorded and a map could be generated live to provide both a visual and a structure to further guide the conversation. As for the essay version, one major issue with the app has been that it's just hard to know where you're supposed to look, and I think an essay version would probably help with that. I think LLMs can do a decent job here.
Thanks for sharing, I hadn't heard of that. It saddens me a little when I hear about all the structured argument sites that died. I'm always interested in trying to learn from them, like what worked and what didn't work. I can't seem to find many details about this one.
Appreciate the feedback. I had played around with defaulting scores/justification showing vs not showing mainly because in a big diagram it can add clutter, hadn't been solid on that though.
Regarding styling edge types: Yes and I think it's a good idea. I think there are some things I haven't tried yet, but I added logic gates https://github.com/amelioro/ameliorate/issues/785 (More Actions Menu > Preferences > Edges > Use semantic arrow shapes) and there's an open ticket for using colors to convey good/bad https://github.com/amelioro/ameliorate/issues/836. Thickness is another thing that potentially could be played with, thicker being higher score? Hadn't gotten to that.
It's not exactly IBIS, but inspired for sure. IBIS I think is better for modeling a live discussion, it's almost an append-only structure (to model back-and-forth), whereas Ameliorate's structure (the core is concepts with cause & effect relations) is intended to have new information integrated without duplication (which can be more annoying to do live because it can involve modification rather than appending).
Ameliorate models questions and arguments, but they're more auxiliary (modeled as being _about_ a cause or effect) than in IBIS, where they're pretty central. Questions in Ameliorate are more "unknowns" than "core questions we are trying to answer".
If you see my root-level comment in this post, I mention refining the Ameliorate ontology (ameliorate-v2) which elevates questions to first-class (to address the issue where it's hard to know where to look in the diagram, without questions to identify motivation). You might also be interested in my ontology playground in that comment if you want to see an IBIS > mermaid pipeline.
If you have a problem that's hard to think through or agree on with someone else, this app can help you make a (cause & effect) diagram to understand it better. Use numbers (scores) to show others how important you think something is (nodes) or how much you think something causes another thing (edges). You can add reasons (supports/critiques) to justify your numbers, and tradeoffs (criteria) to compare options for dealing with the problem. The app can show where you disagree with people or what people think are most important (generated views).
I might need LLM help to figure out how to explain to a 5 year old haha.
Thanks for the feedback, I agree. I hadn't gotten around to adding an Explore page. There haven't actually been many users so it'd be mostly my topics and topics from some small group discussions I've hosted, but would be good to have more for people to see.
For those interested, I've slowed work on the app in favor of refining the app's ontology in markdown form[1], building an ontology playground[2], and building a prototype[3] to show off features that the updated ontology enables. I had some major changes I wanted to make and making it work in the real app was going to be too much effort.
I'll likely be making a Show HN for one/some of these soon^TM (in the next month or two?) but they're currently still a bit early.
I think there's a lot of good advice in these comments already, at least for individuals to think about for themselves.
I happen to have discovered a fantastic contra dancing community[1] in Chicago that could be great for some who are lonely. You have to chalk up the courage to go (if you aren't used to trying new things, or dancing), but everyone is extremely welcoming, the dancing is easy even for people "with two left feet", and the happiness going around is truly contagious.
I think it's a terrific place to find community. It's a social dance where you'll basically dance with everyone by the end of the evening. There's time before, in the middle (snack intermission), and at the end for striking some conversation. The dancing is every Monday so it's routine. The crowd (100-150 people on average) is diverse in many ways (at least in age, gender, income, interests) so you're bound to find people with commonalities that, using some of the other advice in these comments, you could try to hang out with outside of the dancing.
As far as getting people to feel like they can join, I'm not the expert, but I've had such a great experience that I'm happy to at least bring it up and "spread the good word".
For outside of Chicago: contra dancing is a bit niche, but a surprising amount of large-ish US cities have it. I think it's more popular (relatively) on the East coast. Can't speak for outside of the US.
