Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus [or How the Left builds consensus]
Eagle Forum ^ | November 1998 | Lynn Stuter

Posted on 12/07/2006 9:39:55 AM PST by Antoninus

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.

The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.

How the Delphi Technique Works

Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus.

In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to "discuss" what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those "discussions" influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in communities and school districts all across the country. Let's review the process that occurs in these meetings.

First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion.

The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.

Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is: "How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."

That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone's input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group's comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don't question the process.

Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they'll resist.

The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.

How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique

Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.

Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.

Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My question was . . ." and repeat your question.

Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It's called crowd control.

At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: "But you didn't answer that lady/gentleman's question." Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on.

Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.

A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members.

This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique.

Lynn Stuter is an education researcher in Washington state. Her web site address is www.learn-usa.com/.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: brainwashing; consensusbuilding; delphi; delphitechnique; grouppsychology; hegeliandialectic; visioning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last
Considering the number of non-cons, barely-cons and liberal-cons that have appeared on FR recently, and the number of Rudy boosters who have suddenly come out of the woodwork, this is a very important article.

I first learned about this on FR many years ago and it seems like it's time for a refresher course on how the Left operates.
1 posted on 12/07/2006 9:39:57 AM PST by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Sounds like Rush and Sean to me...


2 posted on 12/07/2006 9:42:58 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

It, and its variants, work when the victims are willing to sit and listen for a significant period of time. I usually am lost forever between the 'Sure is cold today' and the 'so we should levy a head tax of $20 a month.'


3 posted on 12/07/2006 9:43:58 AM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes; little jeremiah; EdReform; scripter

Ping.


4 posted on 12/07/2006 9:45:29 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

The left isn't this smart - they will just call you a racists, shout homophobia, want grandma to go hungrey, etc. or just say "it is for the children" if you disagree with them. They will avoid debating any issue.


5 posted on 12/07/2006 9:47:02 AM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It, and its variants, work when the victims are willing to sit and listen for a significant period of time.

I'm confident it's been adapted for use on fora like FR where people read and debate for hours. We're much too attractive an audience for the Left to simply ignore. And as they are much more inclined to be dishonest, they have no problem pretending to espouse views they don't actually hold on some issues, just to be able to rant on a given pet issue.
6 posted on 12/07/2006 9:48:26 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

This nicely summarizes the entire global warming "debate."


7 posted on 12/07/2006 9:48:32 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

ping for later


8 posted on 12/07/2006 9:49:09 AM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
The left isn't this smart - they will just call you a racists, shout homophobia, want grandma to go hungrey, etc. or just say "it is for the children" if you disagree with them. They will avoid debating any issue.

Did you read the article? That's exactly what it's about. Making those who disagree with them appear to be the bad guys, while they are the "victims." It's not about debate, it's about making people think they've had a debate when they've really had the "consensus opinion" imposed upon them.
9 posted on 12/07/2006 9:50:28 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

bttt


10 posted on 12/07/2006 9:51:03 AM PST by Excellence (Vote Dhimmocrat; Submit for Peace! (Bacon bits make great confetti.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Supposedly it is a new, high power management technique, but I will tell you that I have seen apprentice peanut vendors on the streets of Istambul use the technique with apparent success.


11 posted on 12/07/2006 9:51:42 AM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
This nicely summarizes the entire global warming "debate."

Not to mention the affirmative action "debate", the abortion "debate", the social security reform "debate", the gay marriage "debate", etc.
12 posted on 12/07/2006 9:52:24 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Sounds like Rush and Sean to me...

I respectfully disagree.

Rush doesn't need it, and Hannity couldn't understand it.

13 posted on 12/07/2006 9:52:28 AM PST by Wormwood (Proud Goldwater Republican ( i.e. persona non grata)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
The left isn't this smart

Enough of them are this smart. You're mistaken if you think this isn't being used.

L

14 posted on 12/07/2006 9:52:40 AM PST by Lurker (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

ping for later


15 posted on 12/07/2006 9:53:21 AM PST by navyguy (We don't need more youth. What we need is a fountain of SMART.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Supposedly it is a new, high power management technique, but I will tell you that I have seen apprentice peanut vendors on the streets of Istambul use the technique with apparent success.

That nicely defines all of the "science" of psychology if you ask me. What research psychologists spend years studying is known intuitively by merchants in a bazaar.
16 posted on 12/07/2006 9:54:39 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
A friend clued me into this years ago; I believe I still have the hardcopy he gave me that may be from your link.

Once you're aware of it, this technique is really obvious when others use it.

17 posted on 12/07/2006 9:54:54 AM PST by Ladysmith ((NRA, SAS) "If God is not, everything is permitted." Fyodor Dostoyevsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Just ping.


18 posted on 12/07/2006 9:55:13 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

Pingferlater.


19 posted on 12/07/2006 9:55:40 AM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith
Once you're aware of it, this technique is really obvious when others use it.

Living in Clearwater, all I can say is that the technique is misnamed. The "Hubbard Technique" seems more appropriate.

20 posted on 12/07/2006 9:57:27 AM PST by Wormwood (Proud Goldwater Republican ( i.e. persona non grata)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

The other thing leftist manipulators do is simply wear people down. Any normal person will get tired of discussion groups and committees and subcommittees and endless meetings and pointless debates. After a while the only people left to make the decisions are the pros willing to sit it all out to the end.


21 posted on 12/07/2006 9:57:50 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

I don't know. They both seem to escalate tensions, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous. They both share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics. They elicit input from group members. To me, they look very similar.


22 posted on 12/07/2006 10:00:47 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Howlin; Congressman Billybob; Antoninus

Technical, not easy to read, but accurate.

She misses the "group dynamics" (group think) of the media "prejudging" and reporting selectively on outcomes.


23 posted on 12/07/2006 10:03:09 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

Ahh, yeah. Since you bring it up, there are a lot of techniques used by liberals that seem to have been started by $cino...


24 posted on 12/07/2006 10:05:48 AM PST by Ladysmith ((NRA, SAS) "If God is not, everything is permitted." Fyodor Dostoyevsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

"...who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous."

It sounds like an average day on FR


25 posted on 12/07/2006 10:06:19 AM PST by gregwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: labette

ping


26 posted on 12/07/2006 10:06:20 AM PST by labette (I'm not an expert, but I play one on Free Republic. You can too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Great article! We really need to know how to counter the left's mind control.


27 posted on 12/07/2006 10:06:27 AM PST by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell

Just added to my bookmarks so I don't lose it again...


28 posted on 12/07/2006 10:17:15 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
The other thing leftist manipulators do is simply wear people down. Any normal person will get tired of discussion groups and committees and subcommittees and endless meetings and pointless debates. After a while the only people left to make the decisions are the pros willing to sit it all out to the end.

Excellent point. I think the USCCB works on that model as well....
29 posted on 12/07/2006 10:18:33 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Another way libs consolidate power is by what I call "co-credentialing". This is where Liberal Group A takes special note by giving an award or by praising the work of a member of Liberal Group B. Liberal Group C gives similar notice to a member in Liberal Group A. Liberal Group B praises a member of Liberal Group C.

Every group gets self elevated by basking in the glow of achievement of the notable members of the other groups. (Jesse Jackson has raised this basking behavior to an art form of self promotion) Members get to put the award in their trophy case and mention it on their resumes. Recipients also find it easier to get grants and positions on boards, thus increasing liberal influence yet more.

Most importantly, the MSM now has another source to quote when they need an authoritative liberal who can now be even more weighty when the awards are mentioned.
30 posted on 12/07/2006 10:24:15 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
It works in jury rooms, too. I watched it.

The technique has one vulnerability in particular, and that is that the facilitators must be able to maintain the illusion of centrality. Where the other participants are able to insist that they commit to and defend their own points of view (like everybody else) the leverage they derive from the occupation of an ostensibly central ground is lost.

You do see this a lot on the 'net and occasionally on FR, usually practiced by someone who only asks questions, a technique also prevalent within the "Critical Thinking" curricula. An old and notorious FR troll named Ash was an expert at it.

31 posted on 12/07/2006 10:26:04 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Plenty of good points.

However, imho, the Delphi technique is merely a neutral process.

IN THE HANDS OF GLOBALISTS, IT'S !NOT! a neutral process.

But we could use it powerfully if we cared to, for conservative goals. It originally started out as a process for predicting future events on the basis of a diversity of inputs contributing more powerfully to an accurate prediction. And, as such, it was way above chance in accuracy.

Sounds like it's been momrphed and tarnished with the whole evil globalist schtick.


32 posted on 12/07/2006 10:27:05 AM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

This article describes all too common methods of manipulating public consultations -- but, it doesn't describe the Delphi technique.


33 posted on 12/07/2006 10:29:24 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

This is how sending things to committee can really screw things up. Logic often takes a backseat to consensus.


34 posted on 12/07/2006 10:30:13 AM PST by TX Bluebonnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith
Once you're aware of it, this technique is really obvious when others use it

Maybe, but 99 and 44/100ths of the folks out there, aren't. The sad thing, if one doesn't understand this concept, albeit broad, pervasive and insidious, one has no hope of understanding polls and polling, local, state and federal politics &c &c., in the US whatsoever.
35 posted on 12/07/2006 10:33:28 AM PST by Freedom4US (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

Totally agree with you.


36 posted on 12/07/2006 10:42:28 AM PST by Ladysmith ((NRA, SAS) "If God is not, everything is permitted." Fyodor Dostoyevsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom; murphE
It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

Certain religion forum posters come to mind?

37 posted on 12/07/2006 10:43:51 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

This is a very good piece. Thanks for posting it. Bookmarked.


38 posted on 12/07/2006 10:45:24 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
The history behind it is fairly innocuous, as far as that goes. Apprently, the RAND corporation in the early 1960's wanted a "think tank" approach to the possibility of the cold war tensions escalating to a full scale nuclear war. A centralized clearing house approach was envisoned, using the hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis as the article mentions. A series of questions was submitted to numerous noted experts and authorities and interested governmental agencies, et al. After the data was collected, new questions and data were crunched and new questionaires submitted. The important thing to note, none of the participants were in contact with each other, etc. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Anyway, this model of "consensus" building was adapted to fit in business, local government and academia, etc. What is called the "delphi technique" in popular usage today is what the original article references, there is nothing neutral about it. It was the melding of radical, leftist anarchist types coupled with this method that it found its true efficacy. See "Rules for Radicals", and "Institute for Social Research" for more eye opening stuff.

What it does, in aggregate is give the voters/taxpayers/citizens/employees the illusion that they have been consulted even remotely on what is in reality a foregone conclusion dictated from on high by whatever agency is pulling the scam. The beauty of it lays whereby those holding sensible, mainstream views are led to believe they are in the minority viewpoint, and extremist, dogmatic, etc. It's also a handy method of identifying certain folks for a little "extra attention" in other avenues of life. It is nothing new, when I mentioned this to my aged father, he related to local school board members utilizing this to great effectiveness in the 1960's. While I don't know a lot about "Robert's Rules of Order", I suspect the "delphi technique" was tailored to expunge this bit of rational order. Parents walked out of those meetings knowing they'd been had, they just didn't know how. This article explains a lot. Too little too late, since the "agents of change" have virtually all of the appropriate agencies are staffed by "yes men/women" who are good party apparatchiks.
39 posted on 12/07/2006 10:50:17 AM PST by Freedom4US (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
You do see this a lot on the 'net and occasionally on FR, usually practiced by someone who only asks questions, a technique also prevalent within the "Critical Thinking" curricula. An old and notorious FR troll named Ash was an expert at it.

I remember him. I can think of about a dozen other current frequent posters who refuse to be nailed down on any issue, but happily excoriate those they consider 'extremists'. These 'extremists', not surprisingly, are almost always the social conservatives among us.
40 posted on 12/07/2006 10:54:01 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Exactly - see "Global Warming"


41 posted on 12/07/2006 11:01:53 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
You do see this a lot on the 'net and occasionally on FR, usually practiced by someone who only asks questions, a technique also prevalent within the "Critical Thinking" curricula.

I have been to a number of "critical thinking" workshops, and indeed just conducted one where I work. In principle, and in the hands of an honest teacher, it is not only anodyne but produces better citizens. Students learn to ask questions like "What is the quality of the evidence?", "Are there any emotional words that are not defined?", etc.

Alas, the harm comes when what students are asked to be critical of never changes. For the higher-ed crit-think community (and it is fairly large) "critical thinking" always seems to amount to arguments for bigger government, encouragement to reason purely in terms of group identities rather than individuals, etc. Invariably, recognizably conservative arguments are used as raw material for "critical thinking." It's really sort of scandalous.

When I first started to seriously engage in that kind of Socratic interrogation in my classrom I used to use mostly arguments from the left as raw material. I eventually decided that, as satisfying as it was, the ideal teacher in this kind of critical-thinking process is one whose politics are unknown to the student. It is of course easy to say and hard to do.

42 posted on 12/07/2006 11:06:55 AM PST by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I've run across those same people. However if you push them enough, more than a few lapse into name-calling and irrelevancy which totally outs their lib mindset.


43 posted on 12/07/2006 11:12:35 AM PST by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Thanks, I'll ping the list later. I've been sitting here waay too long. Duty calls.


44 posted on 12/07/2006 11:17:21 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Delphi technique bump. School superintendents are experts at this.


45 posted on 12/07/2006 11:20:52 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

"I remember him. I can think of about a dozen other current frequent posters who refuse to be nailed down on any issue, but happily excoriate those they consider 'extremists'. These 'extremists', not surprisingly, are almost always the social conservatives among us."

Where's the "Hammer Meets Nail" graphic when you need it!


46 posted on 12/07/2006 11:22:01 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Delphi technique bump. School superintendents are experts at this.

Good point. This probably needs to be bumped to the home school list as well....
47 posted on 12/07/2006 11:22:44 AM PST by Antoninus (Rudy as nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media love him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
"In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous."

aka the MSM

48 posted on 12/07/2006 11:31:05 AM PST by LZ_Bayonet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

I've seen it in action in NC local politics.

Just keep asking the same question, it drives them nuts.


49 posted on 12/07/2006 11:33:29 AM PST by TC Rider (The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Interesting technique. Bookmark for later printing.


50 posted on 12/07/2006 11:39:55 AM PST by IrishCatholic (No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson