Guidelines for Analyzing Problems

[Molaskes]

A problem, once detected, needs to be analyzed to prepare developing a solution for it. Two things need to be achieved in this step: Providing grounds for prioritizing projects to be solved in the next step, and offering a full understanding of the problem as much as it may be needed for developing a solution for it.

In general, no problem is invalid per se, even “freak concerns” are proper problems for the people who are troubled by them. In such cases, the analysis of the problem may reveal that it is rooted in erroneous premises, and the solution in the next step would then need to develop ways to address these in such a way that the needlessly troubled can overcome their unjustified fears. This is not to be taken lightly, as such problems are very real and can be very grave for those affected by them, and it can take real effort to correct them.

However, erroneous premises are often also at play in the opposite case, where there is actual reason for concern but most people are not aware of it, either by simple ignorance (not knowing about the issue at all) or by way of misinformation, for instance created by marketing/PR/propaganda to white-wash an actually harmful product or practice.

The premises behind any detected problem therefore always should be scrutinized closely in the analysis. Are they valid or not, and why so? And where do they originate from, if they are erroneous? This may be cultural fallacies, or manufactured misinformation.

The analysis should also show the severity of the problem, including how many people / victims it affects currently and would likely affect over time, and what the range of gravity of it is. Does it simply pester people, does it cause debilitating stress such as pain or grief, does it traumatize victims, does it cause physical harm, does it even kill or threaten to kill? And what will be the gain of solving it, for individuals as well as for society? This whole part of the analysis is the most important one for prioritizing BWTT projects.

Next the analysis must provide understanding for what systems the problem is a part of, determining its primary system of relevance, where causative relations can be shown to be most plausibly creating, or significantly contributing to, the problem. What is the “world”, the domain of the problem, how does it work in general and what factors of it are plausible explanations for why the problem exists? It often helps here to also look at the history of the problem, or its etiology.

Finally, it may prove very useful to research any prior solution attempts for the problem and determine plausible explanations for why they failed to really solve it.

Any contributors to the BWTT shall feel free to double-check any problem analyses, as this not only can improve the quality of the analysis, adding potentially additional expertise to the interdisciplinary approach of a thorough analysis, but it also protects against hostile deliberate manipulation in this step, where agents may infiltrate the BWTT to selectively bend and spin how problems are analyzed, influencing how they will be handled in the next steps, developing and implementing solutions. By double-checking, such attempts can be thwarted very effectively.