Objection: Too complicated

f
Objection:

Theory Mapping is simply too complicated to be able to command a widespread following, requiring significant upfront investment of time in agreeing on the facts, and learning and drawing up the Theory Maps.

Responses:

1. Importance of good software
The level of time and mental effort required can be significantly reduced through effective software. For instance, the software can have a function for entering facts, which allows them to be dragged and dropped onto each map. See Theory Mapping Software for a discussion of this.

2. Upfront costs decline over time
The level of effort required by a newbie would decline significantly over time for a particular topic, as a database of facts is drawn up and example Theory Maps exist to refer to.

3. Incentives outweigh costs
Having an objective test for who wins and loses, creates a strong incentive to participate or observe, that can outweigh the upfront investment costs.

4. Widespread uptake isn't necessary
Even if Theory Mapping does not command a widespread following, it still has the potential to revolutionise thinking and debate on a subject. This is because those who do participate are likely to be the opinion leaders, and the results will be widely publicized.

5. Argument Map literacy will improve over time
It has been pointed out by Simon Buckingham Shum (here) that with regard to argument visualization tools we need “a new literacy in being able to read and write in the new medium, and a new fluency in using these conversational tools in appropriate ways in different contexts.” As argument mapping becomes more widely used, so this literacy will develop.

6. Need for pilot testing
The only way to be sure of whether Theory Mapping is too complicated is to pilot test it!
f