Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus [or How the Left builds consensus]

Eagle Forum ^ | November 1998 | Lynn Stuter

[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.

[stuartcr]

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.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Technical, not easy to read, but accurate.

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

[Ladysmith]

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

[gregwest]

"...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

[labette]

ping

[Wilhelm Tell]

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

[Antoninus]

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

[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.

Excellent point. I think the USCCB works on that model as well....

[theBuckwheat]

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.

[Billthedrill]

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.

[Quix]

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.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

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

[TX Bluebonnet]

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

[Freedom4US]

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.

[Ladysmith]

Totally agree with you.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

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?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

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

[Freedom4US]

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.

[Antoninus]

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.