In Differences, you can find thoughts considered interesting or engaging to different groups of participants. These thoughts stand out because of the reactions they drew from participants.
How are Differences determined?
Our software’s pretty keen at picking out key areas of interest where the human element threw its expectations for a bit of a loop. As it turns out, these surprises result in some interesting insights for us humans. Differences looks at the rating patterns of two groups, and then picks out thoughts that the two groups rated in a particular way.
These can be either:
- Interesting Thoughts (thoughts that like-minded groups rated in opposite ways)
- Common Thoughts (thoughts that divisive groups mutually gave a high or low rating to)
How are these groups generated?
Once our software uncovers an interesting rating pattern that some participants have in common, those participants are automatically added to a group. The activity of these auto-created groups can then be compared and contrasted in Interesting Thoughts and Common Thoughts.
Note: Differences does not reveal the identity of participants. None of our features do.
We then gather these thoughts, and store them under the Differences tab for you to read and reflect on.
When paired with the right demographic questions, Differences can help frame an area of focus in the conversation, like the edge pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. These key pieces of info can make it easier to pick out perception gaps and differing opinions between groups of participants.
In many cases, gaining insight into an exchange isn’t as simple as skimming through the Top Thoughts to see what matters. For example, an important thought might be buried by mediocre ratings while being an area of focus for a group of people. Differences can be effective in finding these side conversations.
Imaginary Superintendent O'Neil recently led an exchange on this year's budget for the local high school. The exchange is now closed and Top Thoughts is abuzz with great conversation. Differences reveals other thoughts -- some of which she hadn’t heard before.
In one case, two interest groups (Group A and Group B) shared and rated thoughts in a way that shows that they generally have different priorities. But Dr. O'Neil sees that they both gave high ratings to “improved culinary facilities for students”. This insight gives Dr. O’Neil common ground to bring these groups together.
💡 The takeaway: besides the Thoughts list, Dr. O’Neil now has this Differences thought which attracted positive attention from differing groups. She feels that there's something worth digging into here, and plans to use this as a launching point for her next exchange.