Home › Topics › ISE Framework › Conflict Resolution › Interest Analysis › [Belief / Topic Name]
Interest Analysis: [Belief / Topic Name]
The proposal: Stop debating only positions ("what do you want?") and start scoring motivations ("why do you want it?"). This page makes motive claims testable and turns value clashes into measurable trade-offs.
Linkage Accuracy (0-100)
How confident are we this interest motivates this group? |
Interest Validity (0-100)
Even if the interest is real, how legitimate is it, judged by objective criteria (universal test, reciprocity, impact scope, reversibility, available alternatives)? |
Scoring engines: ReasonRank (arguments), Evidence Tiers (source quality), Linkage Scores (connection strength).
Values integration: tag interests to values (e.g. Freedom) and label the core conflict pair (e.g. Safety vs Freedom). See Values Framework.
Scores throughout are illustrative placeholders. The live scoring engine is on the roadmap, not running yet. Some conflict columns below (Negotiability, Difficulty) are designed but not yet built.
1. Interest Profile
Editable snapshot of the strongest candidate interests for each side. Scores update as evidence and arguments are added. For a quick read on one interest, this section alone is enough; the sections below are for deeper analysis.
| Side | Interest (the "why") | Value Tag(s) | % Motivated | Linkage Accuracy | Validity | Maslow |
|---|
| Supporters |
[Interest A]
Short definition / scope. |
[Value A] [Value B] |
[45%] |
[85] |
[82] |
[Safety] |
| Opponents |
[Interest C]
Short definition / scope. |
Freedom [Value D] |
[50%] |
[78] |
[76] |
[Esteem] |
See: Interest (definition and two-score model).
2. Validity Debate: Is the Interest Legitimate?
Reasons for and against ranking each interest highly, judged against the objective criteria, not against a single ethical theory. Each reason is scored by ReasonRank and should link to evidence. When validity is the real fight, expand it on a child page using the Interest Validity Debate Template, which adds the comparative and scenario scopes this quick table omits.
| Reasons for higher validity | Reasons for lower validity |
|---|
| [Interest A]
[Headline reason], score [88]. Tier 1 Evidence: [Source], Linkage [0.82]. One sentence on the criterion it passes (e.g. universal test).
|
[Interest A]
[Headline counter-reason], score [76]. Tier 2 Evidence: [Source], Linkage [0.70]. One sentence on the criterion it fails (e.g. harms others, fails reciprocity).
|
Validity is computed from these pro/con reasons via ReasonRank and constrained by objective criteria and cost-benefit analysis. It is never set by who holds the interest or how powerful they are.
3. Maslow Placement and Classification Accuracy
Place each interest on Maslow's hierarchy and score the confidence that the placement is right (Classification Accuracy), based on the best sub-arguments. The placement gives a prior for validity, a starting band, not a verdict. The actual validity score comes from the argument tree in section 2 and can move outside the band when the arguments warrant.
| Interest | Maslow Tier | Typical validity prior | Classification Accuracy |
|---|
| [Interest A] |
[Safety] |
70-85 |
[85] |
| [Interest C] |
[Esteem] |
40-60 |
[72] |
| [Interest: Tribal Dominance] |
Anti-social / Pretextual |
0-20 |
[90] |
Priors by tier: Physiological 85-100, Safety 70-85, Belonging 50-70, Esteem 40-60, Self-Actualization 30-50. Anti-social or pretextual motives typically land 0-20, not because the band assigns it but because they fail the universal test and reciprocity. Any of these can be moved by the arguments.
4. Linkage Evidence and Motive Verification
A) Evidence tying interests to groups
Strong evidence plus strong arguments raise Linkage Accuracy.
| Group | Interest | Top evidence (source + tier) | Linkage Accuracy |
|---|
| [Group name] |
[Interest A] |
[Survey / interview / statement] Tier 1
[Voting / spending / donation data] Tier 3
Optional: confounds / alternative explanations. |
[85] |
B) Advertised vs. revealed motives (gap analysis)
If rhetoric contradicts behavior, Linkage Accuracy should drop. Capture the mismatch explicitly.
| Interest / Value | Advertised (stated) | Revealed (behavior) | Gap Score | Evidence |
|---|
[Interest]
Value: Freedom |
[What they say] |
[What they do] |
[60]
higher = bigger mismatch |
[Source A] Tier 2
[Source B] Tier 3 |
See: Cognitive Bias Detection, Truth Scoring.
5. Belief Connections and Conflict Mapping
A) Backlinks (interest to beliefs / positions)
Which beliefs does this interest support or oppose? Keeping backlinks current reveals recurring conflict patterns.
| Interest | Beliefs supported | Beliefs opposed |
|---|
| [Interest A] |
[Belief/Position 1]
[Belief/Position 2] |
[Belief/Position 3]
[Belief/Position 4] |
B) Fundamental conflict pairs (values / needs colliding)
Many debates are legitimate trade-offs between values (e.g. Safety vs Freedom). Score which conflict pair actually drives the disagreement.
| Belief / Position | Conflict pair | Which side emphasizes | Confidence | Difficulty | Negotiability | Resolution Potential |
|---|
| [This belief] |
Safety vs Freedom |
Supporters: [Safety]
Opponents: [Freedom] |
[88] |
[High] |
[Moderate] |
[70] |
Resolution Potential is live; Difficulty and Negotiability are designed but not yet built. See: Objective Criteria.
6. Shared Interests and Shared Values (Compromise Foundation)
Strategy: build on shared interests first, then negotiate conflicts through explicit trade-offs using objective criteria.
A) Shared interests
| Shared interest | Validity | Linkage (both) | Potential solution direction |
|---|
| [Shared Interest] |
[92] |
[85] / [80] |
[A compromise direction built on the shared interest] |
B) Shared values
Sometimes both sides share a value (e.g. justice) but disagree on application. Score the shared value and the resolution potential.
| Shared value | Value Validity | Linkage to belief | Overall | Resolution Potential |
|---|
| Freedom |
[87] |
[75] |
[72] |
[78] |
See: Inventing Options for Mutual Gain, Compromise.
How to Contribute
- Add or challenge interests: missing motivations or incorrect attributions?
- Provide evidence: link sources with evidence-tier labels.
- Debate linkage accuracy: pro/con reasons for whether the interest truly motivates the group.
- Debate validity: pro/con reasons against the objective criteria.
- Tag values and conflict pairs: e.g. Safety vs Freedom.
- Update backlinks: keep interest-to-belief connections current.
Need help? Contact me.
Framework Links
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.