Skip to comments.The DELPHI Technique -- (Let's us Freepers Dominate Liberal Planning Groups)
Posted on 12/02/2003 6:41:53 AM PST by Lazamataz
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO INSTRUCT FELLOW FREEPERS ON HOW TO CONTROL AND INFLUENCE LIBERAL MEETINGS. The election is upon us. Lets get into the various election groups undercover, and employ these techniques in order to win.
Lynn Stulter -- The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "Lay, or community, participation in the decision-making process, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."
A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.
The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect this is happening, they do not know how to end the process.
- The "change agent" or "facilitator" goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on.
- While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument - the "weak or non-committal."
- Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." He/she wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate.
- The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
- The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. He/she will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.
This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.
FWIW, Hillary Clinton's Wellesley thesis was on Saul Alinsky....
Agreed. The Delphi Technique is used by many left-wing groups and we must be prepared to recognize and disrupt it. I hope your thread doesn't get moved to Chat.
"I'll be posting my research here over the next few days."
Thanks for doing this Laz! If I come across anything else of interest, I'll post it here.
Why on earth would we want to act like liberals? What's next? Shall we instruct Bush on how to lie like Clinton?
Sorry, tactics define. And these tactics are for liars. They were used by bad liberals, they were used by Hitler. Tactics define parameters.
But they may be used against you. What's important is to be able to recognize when the Delphi Technique is being used and how to effectively disrupt it. See the links in reply 10 above.
I think the author was subjected to some such technique before writing this article.
Hope these who are hollering about this being an old post are not that side...
Well, then, at least now you can recognize the tactics, and perhaps enjoy being steamrolled by them.
The point is, these tactics are used -- you undoubtedly recognize times where you've been subjected to it yourself. What's more, this technique is used in such a way that the battle has to be fought on the terms of the person using this technique -- they called the meeting, and you're merely an attendee.
That being the case, you're going to have to deal with the technique as it's used. What the list does not mention is the context in which this technique is used. Here are a few highlights:
1. The other side is organized. The people calling the meeting already know what they're after, and it's then just a matter of gaining concensus.
2. Most most of the people attending the meeting are not organized. They're showing up cold, as it were -- which is what this technique is hoping for.
3. Because people are showing up cold, they tend also to lack information. The moderator thus controls what the attendees do, and do not, know about the topic at hand.
4. Most of the people attending the meeting are there "with an open mind," and they're operating on the assumption that everyone present is, too, and that everyone is there in good faith. (They're wrong, though: see #1)
5. The meeting agenda has been set, and it's geared to further the hidden agenda of those who called it. The moderator of the meeting has the power to control and limit discussion, and will do so.
6. Very often, the meeting itself is meaningless: the decision that is allegedly to be made at the meeting, has already been made elsewhere. The purpose of the meeting, therefore, is primarily to legitimize the decision through a process of "public involvement."
Those are some of the conditions under which this technique works. And they all suggest counter-tactics.
The primary counter-tactic is to defeat the moderator. Not directly, of course, but by subverting the agenda.
For example, to counter #6 requires you to play a role in the real decision process. Or, if you cannot, then you need to make it clear that the meeting is actually meaningless.
The technique of isolation (mentioned above) is designed to address this counter-tactic, which is why you need to be organized (i.e., several of you, sitting throughout the room, not in a group), informed, and most important of all, you must come across as calm and reasonable. (Dress nicely. Comb your hair. Let the best speaker among you do most of the talking, and rise in support of him or her.)
The best approach is not immediate direct confrontation, but instead that of "embarrassing questions," perhaps using confessions of personal ignorance (with which other folks will sympathize). Make the moderator go into details. Have your partners ask for further clarification.
It's also a good idea to challenge the process -- again perhaps introduced in terms of personal ignorance. "Can you explain this? I don't quite understand how this will actually help solve the problem -- how will we know if this group agrees with that one, and how do we resolve those differences....?"
The most important thing is to discover, and make clear, the underlying agenda for the meeting. "What are we really trying to do here? What will be the result of this meeting? Does what we're doing really matter?" This should be done early -- and, if successful, you'll have gained control of the agenda.
There's nothing dishonest about any of this.
Couldn't happen here, we're all conservatives - devoted to limited government, less federal intrusions - against the nanny state, illegal immigration, government welfare, abortion, the nanny state. We all know the Constitution inside and out, understand that ALL powers not delegated to the federal behemoth nor prohibited to the states are state powers. No one would ever try to split us, right?
Not to mention the Episcopal Church.....
Throughout my entire life I have found that the ends rarely justifies use of extremely unethical means.
Several friends and I attended the "hearing," scattered ourselves throughout the audience and challenged everything said.
Unfortunately, this only resulted in another "hearing" because of the issues raised. The subsequent "hearing" was tightly controlled, requiring that any questions be submitted in writing beforehand. Naturally, the questions were hand-picked by the EPA goon, and the new regulations were subsequently adopted.
The point is that we knew we were being Delphied and resisted. If more people were aware of the technique, we'd be more successful fighting it off.
Good post, Laz.
This technique probably goes by numerious names which has made my search more difficult.
Mangement training programs generally spend a lot of time on "running effective meetings," "dealing with difficult people," and so on. Nothing intrinsically bad about those things -- they're useful and necessary.
The problem is that the same techniques can be used as described above. The whole thing boils down to the motives of the meeting moderator.
The pursuit of the homosexual agenda in the Episcopal Church (or other denominations) is an excellent case study of the technique in action. For years, the American church and its allies have been able to get their way by effective use of these techniques. It took the orthodox Primates a long time to understand what was happening -- now that they have, the ECUSA has started losing battles.