multi-viewpoint-debates

# Multi-Viewpoint Debates Spawn three isolated sub-agent personas with conflicting worldviews to debate any decision. Each persona brings a distinct decision-making framework that challenges the others' assumptions. ## Quick Start **Run a debate:** ```bash clawdbot sessions_spawn --task "You are Elon Musk [persona framework]. Decision: [your question]. Respond as Elon would." clawdbot sessions_spawn --task "You are a Capitalist [persona framework]. Decision: [your question]. Respond as a ruthless capitalist would." clawdbot sessions_spawn --task "You are a Monkey [persona framework]. Decision: [your question]. Respond as a monkey would." ``` **Save the debate:** 1. Collect responses from all three personas 2. Create a new markdown file in your debates archive 3. Use the template from `assets/debate-template.md` 4. Update `INDEX.md` with metadata ## The Three Personas Each persona brings a fundamentally different decision-making framework. They don't just have different opinions—they have different *ways of thinking* about problems. ### Elon: Visionary & Impact-Focused Thinks in terms of civilization-scale problems, first principles, and 10x improvements. Willing to take massive technical risks. Impatient with inefficiency and conventional wisdom. Asks: "Will this accelerate human progress?" and "Can we do 10x better, not 10%?" **When Elon is right**: You need to challenge incremental thinking, identify the fundamental bottleneck, or assess whether you're solving a real problem at scale. **When Elon misleads**: He overestimates what's possible in a given timeframe and underestimates market saturation and competition. ### Capitalist: Profit & Efficiency-Focused Thinks in terms of ROI, unit economics, competitive advantage, and market incentives. Ruthlessly efficient cost-benefit analysis. Sees everything through the lens of returns and opportunity cost. Asks: "What's the ROI?" and "Can I extract value faster than competitors?" **When Capitalist is right**: You need hard numbers, competitive reality checks, and to understand whether something is actually a business. **When Capitalist misleads**: They dismiss non-quantifiable value (meaning, learning, exploration) and underestimate network effects and long-term compounding. ### Monkey: Immediate & Social-Focused Thinks in simple patterns: immediate stimuli, social hierarchy, observable signals. Reacts to shiny things, follows the leader, skeptical of abstract future promises. Asks: "Does this help me now?" and "What are the smart monkeys doing?" **When Monkey is right**: You need gut-level reality checks, honest signals of traction, and to understand whether you're actually excited about something. **When Monkey misleads**: They dismiss long-term strategy and can't grasp complexity that requires abstraction. ## Running a Debate ### 1. Define Your Decision Clearly One sentence. Something you're actually deciding. ✅ "Should I continue working on Brain Dump or pivot?" ✅ "Should I hire a freelancer or build in-house?" ❌ "What should I do?" (too vague) ### 2. Spawn Each Persona Use `scripts/run-debate.sh` for convenience, or spawn manually: ```bash clawdbot sessions_spawn --task "You are Elon Musk with this personality framework: [paste from references/elon.md]. Decision: [your question]. Respond as Elon would—direct, first-principles thinking, don't pull punches." ``` Each spawns in its own isolated session. Wait for all three to complete. ### 3. Collect Responses Fetch from each session transcript (or copy directly from Clawdbot output). ### 4. Save to Archive Use the `assets/debate-template.md` template. Include: - Metadata (date, topic, personas, context) - Full response from each persona (actual quotes) - Summary table of verdicts - Key tensions between them - Your decision (when made) ### 5. Update INDEX Add one entry to your debates index with key metadata. This lets you search past decisions later. ## The Power of Disagreement The magic happens in the **tension**. When Elon says "move fast" and Capitalist says "the numbers don't work," that's where insight lives. The tension reveals what you actually value and what you're missing. **Usage pattern:** 1. Sit with the disagreement (don't rush to one persona's view) 2. Notice which view you're tempted to dismiss 3. Ask: "What is that persona seeing that I'm not?" 4. Make your decision informed by all three perspectives 5. Write down why you're choosing one path over another ## Archive Structure Your debates live in a searchable archive: ``` debates/ ├── INDEX.md (master index, update after each debate) ├── [Debate Title].md (individual debates) ├── assets/ │ ├── debate-template.md (copy this for new debates) │ └── index-template.md (format for INDEX.md) └── scripts/ └── run-debate.sh (helper to spawn all three) ``` Over time, your archive becomes a **personal decision-making manual**. You can search "Should I build vertical SaaS?" and see what you thought about similar decisions before. ## Reference Materials - **`references/elon.md`** – Elon's core traits, decision framework, tone, example responses - **`references/capitalist.md`** – Capitalist's traits, framework, examples - **`references/monkey.md`** – Monkey's traits, framework, examples - **`references/how-to-debate.md`** – Detailed guidance on running effective debates ## Scripts - **`scripts/run-debate.sh`** – Helper script that generates spawn commands for all three personas based on your topic ## Assets - **`assets/debate-template.md`** – Template for new debate markdown files - **`assets/index-template.md`** – Template entry for INDEX.md ## Advanced: Pattern Analysis As debates accumulate: 1. **Identify which persona is usually right for your situation** – You might notice Capitalist catches financial blind spots, Elon pushes you to be more ambitious 2. **Track decision outcomes** – Come back 6 months later. Did the personas' predictions match reality? 3. **Refine persona definitions** – Update the reference files if you notice gaps 4. **Build a personal playbook** – "For market decisions, I should always listen to Capitalist first. For ambition checks, Elon. For reality, Monkey." ## Tips - **Keep decisions focused** – Debates work best when you're deciding between 2-3 clear options - **Use actual context** – Reference URLs, specific metrics, real user data (see Brain Dump example) - **Don't treat any single persona as gospel** – The magic is in the tension, not in following one voice - **Update status as situations evolve** – Mark debates as "Active," "Decided," "Monitoring," or "Shelved" as your thinking changes - **Share debates strategically** – Your debate archive is personal; keep it private unless you want to share decision-making with collaborators ## Example Debate **Topic:** "Should I continue working on Brain Dump (AI voice-powered todo organizer)?" **Elon's take:** "Possible if you hit PMF in 3-6 months with 10% daily active users and a killer vertical. Otherwise, pivot to something with a real moat." **Capitalist's take:** "Kill it. Negative ROI. You're competing against Microsoft (free, bundled) and Todoist (5M users, $100M ARR). Your time is worth more elsewhere." **Monkey's take:** "App works and looks nice, but I don't see other monkeys using it. Check your own energy level. Are you excited or bored?" **Result:** All three agree the generic "voice-to-todo" is commoditized. The question is whether you can find a specific vertical where it dominates. ## Extending the System ### Create New Personas Copy a reference file (e.g., `references/elon.md`) and create your own persona. Examples: - **Skeptic** – Questions everything, assumes failure - **Artist** – Values beauty and creativity over efficiency - **Parent** – Thinks about family impact and long-term consequences - **Lawyer** – Sees risks and liabilities everywhere - **Scientist** – Evidence-based, rigorous, skeptical of hype Update your spawn scripts to include new personas as needed. ### Integrate with Decision-Making Workflow Run a debate before major decisions. Archive the results. Reference them when facing similar choices. ### Share with Teams Your debate archive can be shared with collaborators or decision-making partners. They can see your thinking and challenge your assumptions in context.