BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Anti - and Syn - Thesis, More Hegelian Dialectic
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 11:25 AM
Post #31


Unregistered









There are those who have not examined the facts and they call anyone who does - 'useless'.

Then there are those who support what is going on as the Professor of Poly Sci does.

Which is worse?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 01, 2004, 11:28 AM
Post #32


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's strong suit (uncontrollable laughter). Looks like it's all down hill from here for the GOP, if Kerry can deliver again and again like he did last night. The VP debate should be interesting. Cheney is formidable, but people don't vote for VPs.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Oct 01, 2004, 11:35 AM
Post #33


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 01, 12:28 PM)
Foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's strong suit (uncontrollable laughter). Looks like it's all down hill from here for the GOP, if Kerry can deliver again and again like he did last night. The VP debate should be interesting. Cheney is formidable, but people don't vote for VPs.

Kerry has to recapture the middle, and he will do this by becoming more 'militant'. The middle is interested in whether or not he will tough out Iraq and the war against Islamic extremism (er,.. terrism). I would say that he reversed some of the myths floating around that he would pussy-foot around the world by saying he would hunt down and kill 'terrorists' and buildup the military in Iraq. I also think he dispelled some of the myths about his flip-flopping although he still has work to do there. Maybe you are right in your conclusion that he turned the corner last night, but there is lots of time left so we will see.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 11:36 AM
Post #34


Unregistered









Cheney will lose too. But that doesn't mean Kerry will win.

Joseph Biden brought up Chalabi to Bush's feeble talk about Iraq having a leader - and Biden did better than Kerry in a brief time. The two candidates repeated bzz wods over and over as they know the people are not educated enough to think about complex issues.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Oct 01, 2004, 11:40 AM
Post #35


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



I don't know if Cheney will lose. My impression of John Edwards is of a young slick hillbilly lawyer who slings soundbites and tries to be your down-home-country friend. Cheney will just come across as a grumpy but tough grandpa who appears more trustworth when it comes to security (which is the prime issue)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 11:48 AM
Post #36


Unregistered









Security will not be the prime issue and the electorate is all for the sound bytes - which is all there really was last night too. NO real questions were addressed - like what did the US do to Afghanistan and why would Iraq be any different.

Tell me your opinion of what happened in Afghanistan - starting with the so-called Russian Invasion and I will show you why this gambit continues to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. Or perhaps you would like to address the Hmung and Vietnam - which both of them seemed to agree had some modicum of real value when it was perpetrated (For whose benefit?).

IN fact tell me what war of the 20th C. was anything like what the political and media hypesters tell us and I will give chapter and verse on how it was something totally different and wwell-planned to boot.

Do you (for example) believe Russia was Communist?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Oct 01, 2004, 12:05 PM
Post #37


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
Security will not be the prime issue and the electorate is all for the sound bytes - which is all there really was last night too. NO real questions were addressed - like what did the US do to Afghanistan and why would Iraq be any different.

security is the prime issue, and Kerry did well because he looked more 'militant' in threatening to hunt down and kill terrists and buildup the military in Iraq.

QUOTE
Tell me your opinion of what happened in Afghanistan - starting with the so-called Russian Invasion and I will show you why this gambit continues to be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

honestly I don't care. What I do care about is whether or not Afghanistan is a haven for 'terrists' to gather and launch their jihad.


QUOTE
Do you (for example) believe Russia was Communist?

I believe that Russia was strictly controlled by a central government whose power depended not on 'voting' but on killing those who would dissent. I don't really care what label you slap on that
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 01, 2004, 12:06 PM
Post #38


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Russia was Stalinist. Maybe this discussion should move over to the political board?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 12:49 PM
Post #39


Unregistered









Russia was what it was before Stalin (the seminarian).

Anti and Syn - Thesis is the appropriate place for any Hegelian Dialectical discussion of what is real even if it is called realpolitik.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 12:54 PM
Post #40


Unregistered









Dear Dan

(Love YA!)

So security is the issue - Not economy eh?

Hmm. We'll see. Most Americans only care about that extra car in the garage - but maybe things will be different this time. (Talk about fantasy issues!)

Security doesn't include the War on Terra? I thought that was what they talked about last night - I must have been somewhere else.


Afghanistan is a wonderful example of seeing how America 'Wind the Peace' - and I know that they mentioned that buss phrase - or was that only in my hallucinatoiry dreams which you are always projecting my way.

And finally we have the Russia issue - which is what Hegelian Dialectics is ALL about - but I doubt you even know what a Hegelian Dialectic is - do you?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Oct 01, 2004, 02:27 PM
Post #41


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
So security is the issue - Not economy eh?

Of course economy is an issue, it is just not numero uno on the priority list - security is. Any dimwit who has been half awake the last few months should know that.


QUOTE
Security doesn't include the War on Terra? I thought that was what they talked about last night - I must have been somewhere else.

are you smoking crack or something? where did I say that the 'war on terra' was not part of security?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 03:07 PM
Post #42


Unregistered









Dear Dan

I follow the news (Superficial though it is) and I believe the issue of security is not an issue because Kerry and Bush are both militarists. Did that little fact escape your attention in all the mud-slinging about Bush's disappearance during the Vietnam War? Besides people do what makes monetary sense and I know how votes are bought and the dead get to vote - I doubt you do.


You seem to have forgotten that Afghanistan was part of the War on Terra and many others that don't have central banks as part of their national sovereignty. I am sure you do not know about the Bush/Russell Drug program either. Vietnam and Afghanistan can both thank that little factor for what happened to them.

You seem to have bought the whole kaboodle - thank god you are so well informed about the issues - eh? Weren't you saying the people who are not informed should not vote?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Oct 01, 2004, 04:18 PM
Post #43


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
I follow the news (Superficial though it is) and I believe the issue of security is not an issue because Kerry and Bush are both militarists.

That's stupid, RTB. Your implicit assumption that the voters see Bush and Kerry as equivalent on the security issue because they are both 'militarists' is plain nonsense.


QUOTE
You seem to have forgotten that Afghanistan was part of the War on Terra

nonsense. Not only did I say no such thing, I said that I have interest in Afghanistan not become a haven for radical anti-US jihadists. Maybe you should do your homework better before you open your nutty pie hole


QUOTE
You seem to have bought the whole kaboodle - thank god you are so well informed about the issues - eh? Weren't you saying the people who are not informed should not vote?

no, I said that people who are not self-motivated to vote should not be coerced into doing so by 'you must vote' propagandists
ppbbtbtbbtbttbtbtbtbbtbt
nya cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 05:05 PM
Post #44


Unregistered









QUOTE
I follow the news (Superficial though it is) and I believe the issue of security is not an issue because Kerry and Bush are both militarists.

That's stupid, RTB. Your implicit assumption that the voters see Bush and Kerry as equivalent on the security issue because they are both 'militarists' is plain nonsense.

{Did I say 'equivalent'? No. I said they are both militarists. They work for and are fronts for the same people. And yes, informed voters know this.}

QUOTE
You seem to have forgotten that Afghanistan was part of the War on Terra

nonsense. Not only did I say no such thing, I said that I have interest in Afghanistan not become a haven for radical anti-US jihadists. Maybe you should do your homework better before you open your nutty pie hole

Yes, you just repeated it again. You are truly unaware of the stupidity of your superficial position or what Afghanistan meant to people like Zbignieuw and the drug cartel that saw a 400% icrease after it was invaded - and might I point out Russia was not an invader as your media told you.


QUOTE
You seem to have bought the whole kaboodle - thank god you are so well informed about the issues - eh? Weren't you saying the people who are not informed should not vote?

no, I said that people who are not self-motivated to vote should not be coerced into doing so by 'you must vote' propagandists

Again - same thing except for a minor detail - you are saying that the uninformed should not vote - true you might think you are 'self-motivated' but your motivations are highly uninformed and questionable. Thus I would suggest you should go out and vote for one of your 'buddies' in the Pirate complex called Skull & Bones.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Oct 01, 2004, 05:30 PM
Post #45


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
Did I say 'equivalent'? No. I said they are both militarists. They work for and are fronts for the same people. And yes, informed voters know this

you said that because both are 'militarists' security is not an issue. This implies not that security is not important but that both candidates will yield the same security result due to their equivalence under 'militarism'. Thus my conclusion that you imply them as 'equivalent' on the security issue is logical


QUOTE
Yes, you just repeated it again.

where in here did I indicate that I "... seem to have forgotten that Afghanistan was part of the War on Terra "

nonsense. Not only did I say no such thing, I said that I have interest in Afghanistan not become a haven for radical anti-US jihadists

If you can actually point it out instead of just claiming that it is there, you win the prize
(btw, if this confusion is due to you having a novel interpretation of what is the 'war on terra', I am calling radical Islamic jihadists 'terrists' and thus the 'war on terra' is the war that such jihadists have declared against the U.S. and that W is reciprocating)


QUOTE
Again - same thing except for a minor detail - you are saying that the uninformed should not vote -

how many times will I have to say this is nonsense for it to get through your thick skull? (no pun intended)
I spoke of being SELF-MOTIVATED to vote. Whether or not one is 'well informed' is not equivalent to whether or not one wishes to vote. I see that the argument can be made as to the nature of motivation, thus I would like to clarify what I was intending: the 'you must vote' proganda is not a legitimate motivation to vote. Regardless, motoviation to vote is not equivalent to competence on the issues.


you're going to have to do better than put words in my mouth, RTB
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 06:29 PM
Post #46


Unregistered









You say

you said that because both are 'militarists' security is not an issue. This implies not that security is not important but that both candidates will yield the same security result due to their equivalence under 'militarism'. Thus my conclusion that you imply them as 'equivalent' on the security issue is logical


It does not imply security is not important it states that they both will take the same approach - other than nit-picking over details.

How many are dead or would be as near dead as any if it weren't for modern medical and protective devices - for example - I will go get you a report on that.


But they are both 'fronts' and you could say the word equivalent - if you want - but that would be mistaken if you were trying to understand the meaning of fronts and what some people are cluing in to. Have you read Eisenhower's exit speech?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Oct 01, 2004, 06:34 PM
Post #47


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Oct 01, 07:29 PM)
It does not imply security is not important it states that they both will take the same approach - other than nit-picking over details.

take a closer look at what I wrote:

This implies not that security is not important but that both candidates will yield the same security result due to their equivalence under 'militarism'.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 06:56 PM
Post #48


Unregistered









Huge US casualties: Draft vital to restore losses



Mark Benjamin – UPI September 15, 2004
NEW YORK - Nearly 17,000 service members medically evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan are absent from public Pentagon casualty reports commonly cited by newspapers, according to military data reviewed by United Press International. Most don't fit the definition of casualties, according to the Pentagon, but a veterans' advocate said they should all be counted.

The Pentagon has reported 1,019 dead and 7,245 wounded from Iraq.

The military has evacuated 16,765 individual service members from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries and ailments not directly related to combat, according to the U.S. Transportation Command, which is responsible for the medical evacuations. Most are from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Pentagon's public casualty reports, available at www.defenselink.mil, list only service members who died or were wounded in action. The Pentagon's own definition of a war casualty provided to UPI in December describes a casualty as, "Any person who is lost to the organization by having been declared dead, duty status/whereabouts unknown, missing, ill, or injured."

The casualty reports do list soldiers who died in non-combat-related incidents or died from illness. But service members injured or ailing from the same non-combat causes (the majority that appear to be "lost to the organization")are not reflected in those Pentagon reports.

In a statement Wednesday, the Pentagon gave a different definition that included casualty descriptions by severity and type and said most medical evacuations did not count. "The great majority of service members medically evacuated from Operation Iraqi Freedom are not casualties, by either Department of Defense definitions or the common understanding of the average newspaper reader."

It cited such ailments as "muscle strain, back pain, kidney stones, diarrhea and persistent fever" as non-casualty evacuations. "Casualty reports released to the public are generally confined to fatalities and those wounded in action," the statement said.

A veterans' advocate said the Pentagon should make a full reporting of the casualties, including non-combat ailments and injuries. "They are still casualties of war," said Mike Schlee, director of the National Security and Foreign Relations Division at the American Legion. "I think we have to have an honest disclosure of what the short- and long-term casualties of any conflict are."

A spokesman for the transportation command said that without orders from U.S. Central Command, his unit would not separate the medical evacuation data to show how many came from Iraq and Afghanistan. "We stay in our lane," said Lt. Col. Scott Ross. But most are clearly from Operation Iraqi Freedom where several times as many troops are deployed as in Afghanistan.

Among veterans from Iraq seeking help from the VA, 5,375 have been diagnosed with a mental problem, making it the third-leading diagnosis after bone problems and digestive problems. Among the mental problems were 800 soldiers who became psychotic.

A military study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July showed that 16 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq might suffer major depression, generalized anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder. Around 11 percent of soldiers returning from Afghanistan may have the same problems, according to that study.


Cassiopaea Staff Comment: The 'Operation Truth' website is claiming that part of the reason the Bush administration can get away with "cooking" the body count is due to the fact that more than 31,000 members of the U.S. armed forces are not even American citizens:

"More than 31,000 members of the U.S. armed forces are not American citizens. After returning from honorably serving in the United States armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, non-U.S. citizen Servicemembers are put through a lengthy process to obtain U.S. citizenship – often, it is only after their death that they are given immediate citizenship.

It affects more than 31,000 members of the U.S. armed forces who are not American citizens. Following President Bush’s declaration of an expedited naturalization process for Service Members who fight in the war on terror (link), 8,000 green card holders soon thereafter joined the military. US military advertisements in English & Spanish highlight military service as a shortcut to citizenship. In places like Los Angeles, recruiters say that 50% of their recruits are “green card troops”. Upon enlisting, Marine recruiters tell recruits concerned about citizenship that 'the Marines will take care of that.'"

Hence, when troops are killed or wounded in combat, the authorities are not required to register them as KIA or wounded. The following article makes the case that such casualties of war are not even due a proper burial...

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 01, 2004, 06:58 PM
Post #49


Unregistered









Yes, Dan - they are both 'fronts'.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Oct 01, 2004, 07:06 PM
Post #50


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



I wasn't implying that I agree with your assertion of the non-importance of security in this years vote, I was just pointing out your apparent oversight of the 'not' since you effectively repeated my statement.

What I am trying to say is that the issue of security is the most important issue to U.S. voters this election, and that the voters do not see the candidates as equivalent on this issue; far from it. However, Kerry appeared to move to the right on the issue during the debate thus likely gaining some ground in terms of swing voter (shouldn't that be 'flip-flop' voter?) perception.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 02, 2004, 05:50 AM
Post #51


Unregistered









Yes, Dan

It was always apparent what you are buying into. But you miss my point again.

There are people who have read Eisenhower and others. There are people who see that the exporting of terror through colonial corporatism and things like the WTO and many other programs will continue the underlying problem that leads to Osama having a higher moral ground and the chants of Osama at a Mexico versus US soccer game. And there are people who hunger for some honesty in politics - do you not agree that both of these candidates could have told their viewers about the lies of the actual human costs of American fighting men? But of course they are both signators of Secrecy Covenants and supporters of secret agencies who back-doored the CSIS computers while NAFTA was being negotiated in league with Mossad and many other things that are immoral, illegal and actually harmful to their own allies - CSIS is Canada's answer to the NSA.

Have you any interest in the FACTS? Do you read Chomsky, Zinn and real reportage? Do you really believe these Nations have a right to spy on each other and their citizens - Patriot Act II was also not discussed. Both parties have a bill ready on re-instituting the Draft. There is little if any difference between these two 'talking heads'.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 02, 2004, 06:41 AM
Post #52


Unregistered









If any of you can help get radio interviews for me it would be appreciated - here is something you can send your local radio stations.

Hello

My name is Robert Bruce Baird. I am the author of a whole new framework of human cultural evolution based on artifacts and modern scientific tools rather than dogma and deceit. There are many topics on which I can be an interesting guest. Here are some of them:

1. Who Built the Pyramids and Why?

I am scheduled with Rob McConnell's new network on this subject in mid November. Rob is part of a research site on the Pyramids and I hope this will make him a better host than Jack Landman was in my last interview on the Cyber City Radio Network. You can listen to my portion of two interviews with him at World-Mysteries.com where over twenty of my books are available on CD or as e-books.

2. Who are the real 'conspiracy theorists'?

You can read a positive comment from Jim Marrs at my publisher site - http://www.invispress.com/DRD

I am a debunker of any alien influence on human cultural evolution but I am able to explain Contact.

3. Who was Jesus (Iesa) and what was the 'Chriost'?

The Gaedhilic Qumranites and the Tradition of Abaris (rabbi) the Druid.

4. Soulful science or common psi-sense.

I was offered my own call-in radio show when I was just 24 and working with Ambert Dail in Hampton Roads Virginia. Maybe I should have taken him up on that offer almost thirty years ago.

Hoping to hear from you, I am.

Robert Bruce Baird (Bob)
416-516-3584

PS. I was also a recent guest on WQXI in Atlanta's show called The Two Stews and I have been offered a role in a TV documentary being negotiated in England by Philip Gardiner who has made a wonderful comment on my book The Prehistoric Worldwide Import of the GREAT LAKES.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Oct 02, 2004, 10:23 AM
Post #53


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
Yes, Dan

It was always apparent what you are buying into.

huh? I wasn't pointing out what I was 'buying into', I was pointing out your apparent oversight


QUOTE
But you miss my point again.

I miss your point? I'm wondering if you have automatic blinders in your brain that prevent you from actually understanding what I am saying.

I am not concerned with what the 'truth' is in this particular thread, I am talking about public perception and how this factors into the presidential race. All of your secret societies and hidden agendas may or may not be true, but the fact is that the simple perceptions of the public largely determine the election and I am talking about these perceptions. Are you going to miss my point again?



QUOTE
If any of you can help get radio interviews for me it would be appreciated

I bet you could get onto Coast To Coast. Have you been on this show before?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 02, 2004, 11:18 AM
Post #54


Unregistered









Dear Dan

The point you make here is what we can both agree on -

I am not concerned with what the 'truth' is in this particular thread,

And yes, I am more concerned with facts (and truth is often hard to achieve if ever). I think there are more people tuned in to the facts than the people who make the polls too.

CtC would be nice - I have just started doing this and it will take time to get on CtC. They really are 'biased' and not likely to warm up to what I say anymore than the others that try to promote'miss'-story. Art is a Mason for example.

Whitley Strieber would be best for me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 14, 2004, 10:55 AM
Post #55


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
Member No.: 2045



number 154 the newspaper of education rights november 1998

the delphi technique to achieve consensus

how it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation.

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.icehouse.net/lmstuter.

the hegelian dialectic
is used to create the delphi technique

http://www.learn-usa.com/er011.htm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jun 26, 2006, 03:12 PM
Post #56


Unregistered









what do you believe the thesis was in the atomic cafe movie?and why?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th August 2014 - 10:09 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog