Should neutral Effect nodes be modeled in the diagram?

[keyserj]

Right now, if an effect is neutral, the intention is that it can be captured via an Effect node. But if there's no positive/negative effect, perhaps it's not worth the cost of taking extra space in the diagram.

This discussion is started based on the thread around this comment #537 (comment).

TODO: create an Ameliorate diagram summarizing the tradeoffs discussed in the above thread.

See image (left: not modeling Effect node, right: modeling Effect node):

[keyserj]

@prototyperspective for the sake of keeping our discussion in a narrower scope, I'm continuing discussion from #537 (comment) here.

---

it's unclear what ratings mean if it's a neutral/unclear effect node

Scoring an Effect node highly would mean "this is an important effect within the context of the Topic". Even if it's not positive or negative, it can still be important e.g. maybe we suspect that it's a root cause for some other big Benefit or Detriment.

I meant reflective particulate particles

I see, makes sense.

linked to a probably useful component node "particulate air pollution"

Side note: this does seem like an example where Components would be useful for Problems.

I tend to still think connecting them directly would be better

It seems like you're describing this on the left of the image:

This is more visually succinct, but in a cause/effect map like this, I think that it may still be easier to process a visually-explicit "causes" relation, rather than one specified by text within a node.

This also brings up the interesting idea of having some automation to collapse Effect nodes into text within their created Benefits/Detriments... though the text could be too much to fit into one node, especially if there are multiple Effect nodes being collapsed.

it has a combined rating on the edge above the "particles reflect sun" Effect above the Benefit and Detriment – this means people need to consider the two in combination instead of rate them separately how it relates to the problem node

In my current theory of how scoring should work (with nodes & edges scored separately), edge scores exclusively answer the question "does A [cause/whatever-the-edge-label-verb-is] B?", so they wouldn't encode implications about later-down-the-tree nodes. E.g. the "particles reflect sun - created by - air pollution" edge score would mean exclusively "is 'particles reflect sun' 'created by' 'air pollution'?" Node scores could theoretically encode importance from later-down-the-tree nodes via the meaning of "how important is this node within context of the Topic?".

would have two nodes where it can be discussed instead of one. I don't think that's a problem, especially as people don't watchlist/track individual nodes but changes to the entire map.

For tracking updates it doesn't seem like a problem, but for anyone viewing the map, the arguments for "do particulates actually reflect the sun?" would have to be duplicated to both the resulting Benefit and Detriment. Not only that, but if there are 3+ Benefits/Detriments, each one would need those arguments duplicated.

Does it cause the nodes then to be connected directly?

Right now, hiding the Effect would "island" the Benefit/Detriment. I'm envisioning though that, with #434 done, an edge would still display directly between Problem + Benefit and also one between Problem + Detriment - but it'd just be for display purposes, and would have to be expanded until a real edge is shown before scoring/arguing/discussing can happen. If there's a real edge between Problem + Benefit then that edge would be displayed and would be scorable/arguable/discussable.

Assuming the discussion becomes easier with them that doesn't mean the overall problem map becomes easier

I see your point about the overall map being more complex. My hope would be that, if the Effect seems like a minor detail, it could be hidden, and that would retain readability/navigability as if it weren't there anyway.