Edge scores can have ambiguity with node scores

[keyserj]

Describe your issue

In the cars-going-too-fast example, you might score the Detriment "pedestrians might get hit" a 9 to convey that it's a big concern, but the edge where it's "created by" Problem "cars going too fast in my neighborhood" could be scored a 3 to convey that, while the Detriment is a concern, you don't think it's actually created by the Problem.

I think being able to make this distinction is important, because I feel that disagreements often miscommunicate such distinctions (e.g. imagine one party accusing another of not caring about people getting hit, when it's specifically that they don't think that cars actually cause the problem).

Unfortunately, I also generally have been scoring nodes within the context of the Topic. So in the above case, since the Problem is the Topic, if I didn't think the Detriment was relevant to the Topic, I would score it low. I feel that this is also a useful thing to have, because otherwise people can always come up with some reason why the Detriment is important that's irrelevant to the Topic, which isn't useful for the discussion. But this conflicts with the above intention.

I think this conflict creates ambiguity and is therefore pretty important to deal with.

Solution you'd like

No response

Alternatives you've considered

It also seems possible that the scores don't need to be unambiguous, that the score with ambiguity is sufficient enough to prompt discussion/addition of justification.

Additional context

No response

Technical ideas and questions

No response

[keyserj]

Idea: nodes should always be scored based on importance within the context of the topic, and never exclusively to the connected parent node(s) (that's what the edge score is for).

[prototyperspective]

1. It would be still ambiguous as one can differently interpret the context of the topic or how importance is assessed within it (e.g. importance to solving the problem vs importance in terms of problem severity) 2. I don't think people would understand (e.g. not read some info how the rating is supposed to be used and rate nodes connected to just one node for its importance in relation to that node like the edge is supposed to be rated) and/or rate it accordingly but apply many different notions, misinterpret things and be confused.

I wouldn't know how one could make an additional relevance/importance within the broader problem context rating a well-working useful thing – maybe there is but imo it seems more likely it will for most users be more clutter and make things harder to understand. Maybe one could have these extra ratings only on problem nodes so assessment of the importance of [solving] that subproblem in context of the overall larger problem.

[keyserj]

It would be still ambiguous as one can differently interpret the context of the topic or how importance is assessed within it

I think this ambiguity is reduced by considering the type of the node being scored. Importance of a problem's Detriment would indicate severity, importance of a solution's Benefit would indicate solving.

There would still be ambiguity remaining, but at least there's an outlet for intuition that I think is not covered sufficiently by just edge scores e.g. when a relation seems missing, but you can't quite identify it yet (I think we also have an open discussion in #478 about the worthwhile-ness of this example but I'll respond to that soon in that discussion). And a difference in ambiguous scores can still help prompt further reasoning to clarify that ambiguity (and, with the ambiguity clarified, the original difference in intuition can then be clarified, if there is one).