True Causes
EN
← lobby
7/7 · Actions
30 people · 43 ideas
walkthrough · not counted
obstacles · anyone with the link · listed publicly · federation on
stewarded by its steward (sealed)
30 people · 43 ideas · 2 groups · 3 rooms federated
Passport → · Logic → · record
↗ share this map
On another site, as a live map:
As a picture: https://truecauses.org/d/a3a9b0e/map.svg
As data: every judged pair in this room (CSV). Each claim has its own address, /c/a3a9b0e/<card>, listed under the map.
Credit when you publish: Causal map: True Causes, https://truecauses.org/d/a3a9b0e
THE QUESTION

Why do people prefer their own information bubble?

Propose what to do, then judge whether each action would move each root.

Sealed 9 days ago: this room no longer knows who sat in it; only its steward is still named. What it concluded stays.
30 at the table (29 simulated) · 3 actions proposed against 2 root causes. Add one, then judge whether each action moves each cause.
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
Score the roots first
why
The method's own practice, before any action is proposed: each root cause is scored 1–5 on how feasible it is to address, how much impact addressing it would have, and how likely it is to resolve by itself with no intervention. Priority goes to roots with high impact, high feasibility and low likelihood of fixing themselves — priority = impact + feasibility − likelihood. Scores are averaged across the group and shown with how many scored.
1 = low, 5 = high. Your own scores; the group's averages beside them.
root causefeasibleimpactfixes itselfpriority
Children learn what a source is from their parents' feed––––
A report takes three days and the post has already done its work––––
Would each action move each root cause?
Down the side: the actions people proposed. Across the top: the root causes the map found. Every square is one vote on one question — would this action significantly reduce that cause? One side has to reach 75% of the votes cast to settle it; short of that the square stays split. Each square shows how its votes fell — yes / worse / no — and a square is settled when one of those reaches three quarters of them.
why
Answered at 75% of votes cast, like every other question here. Split means people voted and neither side reached that bar — it is a result, not a queue, and it stays split until enough people change their minds. A square nobody settles stays undecided; it never turns into a no. Judging each pair on its own is what stops a popular action being credited with fixing things it does not touch.
ACTIONROOT CAUSES · does the action on the left reduce it?
Children learn what a source is from their parents' feedA report takes three days and the post has already done its work
Teach source-reading in every year, not one discuss✓ yes, it reduces this
25 yes / 0 worse / 4 no
not decided yet
Fund one reporter per council area from a levy discuss⚑ the group split
10 yes / 0 worse / 19 no
not decided yet
Open the libraries in the evening again discuss⚑ the group split
8 yes / 0 worse / 21 no
not decided yet
Highest leverage so far
Teach source-reading in every year, not one reduces 1 of 2 root causes
THE ACTIONS ON THE MAP
Showing every action the room judged: it acts directly on 1 of the 2 root causes. It does not act directly on 1.
Read from the squares the room settled at Actions, nothing else. A root in green is reduced by at least one of the shown actions; in grey, none of them acts on it directly; a red outline means one of them makes it worse.
Nobody has time to be a citizen after two jobs → People are exhausted and take the version that costs least to holdChildren learn what a source is from their parents' feed → The problem is not the algorithm, it is that everyone is watchingChildren learn what a source is from their parents' feed → A report takes three days and the post has already done its workA report takes three days and the post has already done its work → Removing a post makes it famousNobody outside the company can check whether moderation is even applied → Distrust of one institution spreads to all of themNobody outside the company can check whether moderation is even applied → Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informedMedia literacy is taught once, by whoever has a free period → Schools do not teach how to read a sourceRemoving a post makes it famous → Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informedNobody has time to be a citizen after two jobsNobody has time to be acitizen after two jobsChildren learn what a source is from their parents' feed ① Teach source-reading in every year, not oneChildren learn what asource is from theirparents' feed①what the shown actions do to this root causeREDUCED BY 1 ACTIONNobody outside the company can check whether moderation is even appliedNobody outside the companycan check whethermoderation is even appliedMedia literacy is taught once, by whoever has a free periodMedia literacy is taughtonce, by whoever has a freeperiodSchools do not teach how to read a sourceSchools do not teach how toread a sourceDistrust of one institution spreads to all of themDistrust of one institutionspreads to all of themA report takes three days and the post has already done its workA report takes three daysand the post has alreadydone its workwhat the shown actions do to this root causeNO ACTION ACTS ON ITDIRECTLYThe problem is not the algorithm, it is that everyone is watchingThe problem is not thealgorithm, it is thateveryone is watchingPeople are exhausted and take the version that costs least to holdPeople are exhausted andtake the version that costsleast to holdRemoving a post makes it famousRemoving a post makes itfamousRanking optimises for time spent, not for being informedRanking optimises for timespent, not for beinginformed
Each number on the map marks a root cause that action reduces.
① Teach source-reading in every year, not one
② Fund one reporter per council area from a levy
③ Open the libraries in the evening again
What we expect to follow
Predictions about the actions: what each should change, how to measure it, and when to check. On the date, someone who was in the room writes what actually happened beside it.
why
A map says which actions move which causes. It does not say whether anyone did them, or whether anything changed. An entry here is a prediction with a date and something to measure, written after the map settled. When the date comes, what actually happened is written beside it and the prediction stays as it was: a wrong one is the useful kind. Nobody voted on any of this and it changes nothing the room found.
due 25 Sep 2027
actionFund one reporter per council area from a levy
we expectplaces that lost their reporter have one again
measured bycouncil areas with at least one funded reporter
guessesthe room: 15 (median of 15, spread 5 to 35)