Wow, cool article.
There is one part at the start I would call a bit naive:
The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war.
The CIA's RAND corporation wants to claim credit for intrigue like rigging meetings? Is "The Delphi Technique" the first time it was ever done? I doubt it. Vote rigging of all kinds has been going on since voting was invented. Seems like there is missing information here or it's just CIA/RAND/MITRE
wanting to again seem like the authorities on intelligence that they are not and/or brand existing deception in their own way. "Developed" might not be the right word; codified maybe. Recommended even.
But there are very interesting bits. Here's some more (my emphases) :
Generally, participants are asked to write down their ideas and disagreements with the papers to be turned in and “compiled” for general discussion after the general meeting is reconvened.
This is the weak link in the chain, which you are not supposed to recognize. Who compiles the various notes into the final agenda for discussion? Ahhhh! Well, it is those who are running the meeting.
How do you know that the ideas on your notes were included in the final result? You Don’t! You may realize that your idea was not included and come to the conclusion that you were probably in the minority. Recognize that every other citizen member of this meeting has written his or her likes or dislikes on a similar sheet of paper and they, too, have no idea whether their ideas were “compiled” into the final result! You don’t even know if anyone’s ideas are part of the final “conclusions” presented to the reassembled group as the “consensus” of public opinion.
Yes, antiopodean! That is why clear communication is so key. We need to take ownership of our own methods of communication so that we are both responsible for it and everyone knows the degree to which our opinion has been given fair voice. If those methods are taken from us
(as it is with the mainstream media's way of censoring data that they can label with any number of "flags") then they can claim truth by drowning out the truth they don't like.
That's why listening to each other is also very important. We can easily come to false conclusions about whether we are in the majority or the minority on any given subject when clear and open communication has been obscured by a process ... or sometimes a constant re-contextualizing that makes the original truth sound vapid! (i.e.; moving the goal posts)
That would definitely apply to the biggest problem with the sciences lately. "Oh, yes we'll consider your opinion over here in this little corner where nobody can hear you."
Then they will give the stage back to the dominant voice.
aa5 wrote:Whereas there is a small minority of people who are free thinkers. Those free thinkers will never be your unquestioning, loyal servants.
And thank goodness! What kinds of environments nurture free thinking? Not the Universities. And yet their public image is the opposite. What's that about? Is it because they consider themselves "free" from religions?