Welcome to Stand Firm!

Albert Burns: The Delphi Technique

Wednesday, July 9, 2008 • 8:24 pm


With perhaps Anglicanism’s most elaborate implementation of the Delphi Technique a mere couple of weeks away, I thought it would be helpful to post this in its entirety, both as a refresher on what Kenneth Kearon has planned for Lambeth, and as a way of archiving this article in a safe place:

LET’S STOP BEING MANIPULATED!

THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

By: Albert V. Burns

More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get “input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.

You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings. Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly. Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.

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. However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a pre-determined end.

How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined. First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likeable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize with. It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as “bad guys” while the facilitator is perceived as the “good guy.” Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience. The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.

At this point, the audience is generally broken up into “discussion groups” of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator. Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints. 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 re-convened.

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 re-assembled group as the “consensus” of public opinion. Rarely, does anyone challenge the process since each concludes that he or she was in the minority and different from all the others. So, now, those who organized the meeting in the first place are able to tell the participants AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY that the conclusions, reached at the meeting, are the result of public participation. Actually, the desired conclusions had been established, in the back room, long before the meeting ever took place. There are variations in the technique to fit special situations but, in general, the procedure outlined above takes place.

The natural question to ask here is: If the outcome was preordained BEFORE the meeting took place, WHY have the meeting? Herein lies the genius of this Delphi Technique. It is imperative that the general public believe that this program is THEIRS! They thought it up! They took part in its development! Their input was recognized! If people believe that the program is theirs, they will support it. If they get the slightest hint that the program is being imposed upon them, they will resist.

This VERY effective technique is being used, over and over and over, to change our form of government from the representative republic, intended by the Founding Fathers, into a “participatory democracy.” Now, citizens chosen at large, are manipulated into accepting preset outcomes while they believe that the input they provided produced the outcomes which are now THEIRS! The reality is that the final outcome was already determined long before any public meetings took place, determined by individuals unknown to the public. Can you say “Conspiracy?”

These “Change Agents” or “Facilitators” CAN be beaten! They may be beaten using their own methods against them. Because it is SO important, I will repeat the suggestions I gave in the last previous column.

ONE: Never, NEVER lose your temper! Lose your temper and lose the battle, it is that simple! Smile, if it kills you to do so. Be courteous at all times. Speak in a normal tone of voice.

TWO: Stay focused! Always write your question or statement down in advance to help you remember the exact manner in which your question or statement was made. These agents are trained to twist things to make anyone not acceding to THEIR agenda look silly or aggressive. Smile, wait till the change agent gets done speaking and then bring them back to your question. If they distort what you said, simply remind those in the group that what he or she is saying is NOT what you asked or said and then repeat, verbatim, from your notes the original objection.

THREE: Be persistent! Wait through any harangues and then repeat the original question. (Go back and re-read the previous column.)

FOUR: (I wish to thank a reader of the previous column for some EXCELLENT suggestions.) DON’T go alone! Get as many friends or relatives who think as you do, to go along with you to the meeting. Have each person “armed” with questions or statements which all generally support your central viewpoint. DON’T sit together as a group! Spread out through the audience so that your group does not seem to be a group.

When the facilitator or change agent avoids answering YOUR question and insists that he must move on so everyone may have a chance to speak, your own agents in the audience can then ask questions, worded differently, but still with the same meaning as yours. They can bring the discussion back to your original point. They could even point out, in a friendly manner, that the agent did NOT really answer your question. The more the agent avoids your question, and the more your friends bring that to the attention of the group, the more the audience will shift in your favor.

To quote my informant: “Turn the technique back on them and isolate the change agent as the kook. I’ve done it and seen steam come out of the ears of those power brokers in the wings who are trying to shove something down the citizen’s throats. And it’s so much fun to watch the moderator squirm and lose his cool, all while trying to keep a smile on his face.”

Now that you understand how meetings are manipulated, let’s show them up for the charlatans which they are.

“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”


10 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

And this is why all the TEC bishops loyal to KJS have been given cell phones- so they can keep in contact with one another and coordinate their questions, answers and strategy to defuse whatever Rowan has in store for them.  This is Rowan’s Delphi session after all.  The last thing the TEC bishops will allow is a reaffirmation of Lambeth 1.10 or another Windsor type solution that might delay their agenda beyond the next HoB meeting.  And, at the same time, they will be absolutely sure to delay discussion of any Covenant proposal to 2012 at the earliest.

[1] Posted by tjmcmahon on 07-09-2008 at 08:28 PM • top

Greg,
I was first alerted to this by a person posting a comment on Bay Blue’s site last week. This is must reading for anyone who wants to have a crystal ball by which to foresee how Lambeth ‘08 is going to go.

[2] Posted by RMBruton on 07-09-2008 at 08:57 PM • top

I was first exposed to this method during the early 1990s, when the home office on Second Avenue foisted a pro-gay program on the parishes and missions, in preparation for pro-gay legislation that was to be brought up at GC1994.

After you realize that there is a technique involved in the proceedings, and not mere chance, you become sensitive (and sensitized)to it.

[3] Posted by KevinBabb on 07-09-2008 at 09:25 PM • top

tjcmcmahon, do you really trust Williams to do anything other than kowtow to TEC? I have to say that what respect I had for him has been diminished by his nonsensical stances, for example, his refusal to address TEC’s ignoring his authority, regarding ordinations (then his rant about authority after GAFCon), his rationalizing Sharia in Britain. His shilly shallying, and lack of candor. Reading about him sitting with head in hands when everything was going down, Monday evening, to me he was deliberately affecting a pose, so he could continue to play both sides of the fence. Then his comments about wanting to ensure women bishops wouldn’t be discriminated against, but knowing full well that others would be subject to discrimination.

[4] Posted by mari on 07-09-2008 at 09:46 PM • top

When I moved to MN, I found this to be a pretty standard meeting format.  I called it “false democracy”.  But I was informed by locals that this is also known as the “Minnesota meeting.” Not only do such affairs promise inclusion of all points of view, they also take up enormous amounts of time and energy.  I’ve learned to stay away if at all possible.

[5] Posted by dl on 07-09-2008 at 09:57 PM • top

Thinking about the Delphi Technique and Kenneth Kearon’s description of the Lambeth Indaba process, what I see is that after the first two weeks, the Listening Group will no longer be available for the bishops to question. Although:

on four occasions the Listening Group will meet in open session before any bishop who wishes to attend to invite comment on and response to the developing text. These hearings are an advertised part of the conference programme, and will take place on the Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week of the Conference.

this leaves time at the end of the conference when the Listening Group is shaping the final document without any open criticism from those who see that their input is being revised and modified to loose its point.

The hope of the Lambeth Design Group is that this process will permit the development of a Reflections Document which will meet the objectives set out for it, and be available on the last day of the conference to be received as an authentic account of the engagement of the bishops together in the service of Christ.

That is, we can eliminate those reflections which do not meet the pre-conceived plan for the final document.

[6] Posted by perpetuaofcarthage on 07-09-2008 at 10:20 PM • top

Greg, thanks for the valuable reminder.  I urge everyone who has his own Little Stone Bridge to find out as much as he can about countering Delphi (Google is your friend)—such as:

Maybe the Diamond Tactic (communist tactic of crowd manipulation) will also interest you:<hr>
1. Plan ahead of time what action you want the group to take: nominate or oppose a candidate, support or oppose an issue, heckle a speaker, or whatever. Everyone on your team must know exactly what they are going to do, including contingency plans.

2. Team members should arrive at the meeting
separately and never congregate together.

3. Team players should arrive early enough to take seats around the outside of the assembly area, roughly in the shape of a diamond. They must not sit together. The object of the tactic is place your people around the perimeter of the audience so that, when they begin to take action, those in the center will have to do a lot of head turning to see them – to the right, then the left, then the rear of the room, then the front, etc. The more they turn their heads, the greater the illusion of being surrounded by people in agreement with each other, and the more they will be convinced that these people represent the majority opinion.

The only way to thwart the Diamond Tactic is to always be prepared to match it with your own team. Never take a meeting for granted, especially if something important is scheduled to transpire, such as nomination of officers.

Even a simple gathering to hear an important speaker can turn into a nightmare if opponents send in hecklers. So, always plan for the worst and be prepared to spring into action with comments from the floor such as:
“I want to make it clear that these people do not speak for me. I am in total opposition to what they stand for. In fact, I would like to ask them to identify themselves. Who are you? Why did you come to this meeting? What is your agenda?”

If comments such as this are heard from three or four people around the outside of the room, the meeting will be very exciting, but the tactic will be defused.

—from here

Other useful links:

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html

http://www.seanet.com/~barkonwd/school/DELPHI.HTM

Remember:  You will be dealing with professionals.  You are an amateur, you have a life, you want only to write your sermons, raise your kids, have a ham sandwich for lunch, and keep the car running.  Your opponents want to destroy Western civilization, and are making great progress.  No amount of preparation is too much.

[7] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 07-09-2008 at 10:33 PM • top

Great post, Greg.

Remove the patronizing pseudo-African veneer, and this is exactly what +Williams has planned for Lambeth. Hopefully the orthodox bishops are organized and ready to throw a wrench into the process.

[8] Posted by Regressive Neanderthal on 07-10-2008 at 02:25 AM • top

I’d like to make a couple of biblical observations:
—When Jesus conversed with Satan, he quoted scripture.
—When a manipulative, controlling authority figure (Jezebel) led a person with a higher mantle of authority but weaker disposition (Ahab), they were ultimately defeated by a single man of God (Elijah) who brought down fire from heaven.

[9] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-10-2008 at 04:48 AM • top

The Delphi technique has been around for a long time, and many skillful manipulators have been using it without having been trained in it, just because its methods fits their instinctive desire to control a meeting. I think I mentioned this before, but in a San Francisco laymen’s gathering in the late 1970’s to discuss “human sexualities” in relation to the ECUSA, I had the temerity to mention “celibacy” as a possible “lifestyle” option. Rest assured I had no opportunities to say another word after that! That was just after +Swing had taken the helm there…

[10] Posted by ears2hear on 07-10-2008 at 06:31 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.