This is a linkpost for https://docs.google.com/document/d/1McOfwLfLAc4P8nkKSSxVZwhr7gD5iqnrZA10CtNjznQ/edit#
(mod note: I wasn't really sure how to approach this from a 'frontpage or no?' perspective. It's a reasonably meta take on a political subject, but sorta weird. I'm leaving it as personal blogpost for now but open to debate about that)
Any success stories? Or indicators of when to use this approach, vs when to look for truth or when to optimize for preferred outcomes?
The theory behind it (linked from the doc, at https://medium.com/s/world-wide-wtf/memetic-tribes-and-culture-war-2-0-14705c43f6bb ) feels pretty woo-ey to me, and denies agency to most participants (note: I may actually agree, but it's not clearly specified) in a way that it's hard to know what the goals of such intervention are.
IOW, why is mediation better than truth-seeking? It's probably better than simple conflict on things that don't matter, but on topics worth fighting for, I actually care that the truth wins out. If you mean "appearance of mediation is the best way for your preferences to have traction", I kind of agree, but that's very difficult to say plainly enough that anyone will publicly endorse it.
This link discusses strategies to try to mediate disagreements between different warring tribes with fundamentally different world views. Creator unknown.