Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

http://www.iror.org/delphi_info.

asp

The Delphi Technique - by Lynn Stuter

"Ah consensus … the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and
policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one
objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely
because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have
been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?" - Margaret Thatcher

Citizens often arrive at what has been slated as a public hearing or a public
forum to find that things don't seem quite right; that there is suddenly this new
way of conducting meetings that somehow doesn't seem right. Instead of chairs set
up for the audience with microphones where they can give input; there are now
tables with chairs where people sit in circles and are facilitated by a pre-chosen
facilitator.

The links below will take the reader through this facilitated process of consensus
building, what it is, and why it stands diametrically opposed to the foundations
upon which this nation was founded.

The Delphi Technique — How to Disrupt It.

Ground rules for disrupting the consensus process (Delphi Technique) — when
facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.

1) Always Be Charming. Smile, be pleasant, be courteous, moderate your voice so as


not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

2) Stay Focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help you stay
focused. Facilitators, when asked questions they don't want to answer, often
digress from the issue raised and try to work the conversation around to where
they can make the individual asking the question look foolish, feel foolish,
appear belligerent or aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question
on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Always be charming, thus deflecting
any insinuation, innuendo, etc, that may be thrown at you in their attempt to put
you on the defensive, but bring them back to the question you asked. If they
rephrase your question into an accusatory statement (a favorite tactic) simply
state, "that is not what I stated, what I asked was… (repeat your question)." Stay
focused on your question.

3) Be Persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often


resort to long drawn out dissertations on some off-the-wall and usually unrelated,
or vaguely related, subject that drags on for several minutes – during which time
the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the
intent). Let them finish with their dissertation/expose, then nicely, with focus
and persistence, state, "but you didn't answer my question. My question was…
(repeat your question)."

Remember…

always be charming,

stay focused, and

be persistent.
Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator
will immediately make the facilitator "the victim." This defeats the purpose which
is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are
facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the
realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they
believe and stand on what they believe, are obvious threats.] If the participant
becomes the victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is
why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections are written
on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public discussion and public
debate. It's called crowd control. It is always good to have someone else, or two
or three others who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd; who,
when the facilitator digresses from the question, will stand up and say nicely,
"but you didn't answer that lady's/gentleman's question." The facilitator, even if
suspecting you are together, certainly will not want to alienate the crowd by
making that accusation. Sometimes it only takes one occurrence of this type for
the crowd to figure out what's going on, sometimes it takes more than one.

If you have an organized group, meet before the meeting to strategize. Everyone
should know their part. Meet after the meeting to analyze what went right, what
went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time around. Never meet
during the meeting. One of the favorite tactics of the facilitator, if the meeting
is not going the way he/she wants, if he/she is meeting measurable resistance, is
to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his/her "spotters"
(people who wander the room during the course of the meeting, watching the crowd)
watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered
measurable resistance. If the "resistors" congregate in one place, a "spotter"
will usually gravitate to that group to "join in the conversation" and will report
back to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer
clear of those who are "resistors." Do not congregate. Hang loose and work the
crowd. Move to where the facilitator or "spotters" are, listen to what they have
to say, but do not gravitate to where another member of your team is.

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

With thanks to Sandy Vanderberg, Peg Luksik and others

©March 1996; Lynn M Stuter

What American Citizens Need to Know About Consensus and Facilitation

Your local newspaper publishes a notice that a meeting will be held one night next
week to solicit input from the community regarding a proposed plan for community
development. Being a civic minded individual, believing that community involvement
is very important to the health of the community, you mark the date on your
calendar and make a mental note to hold that night free of other commitments that
you might attend this meeting to give your input. The next day you call the number
noted in the announcement and ask to obtain a copy of the proposed plan for
community development, that you might read it before the scheduled meeting date.
You are told that the proposed plan is still at the printers but will be available
at the door. On the prescribed night you arrive at the meeting, a little early as
is your custom. You are greeted at the door by an individual who hands you an
agenda and the proposed new plan for community development heretofore unavailable.
You find the agenda rather odd; you were under the impression that this was a
public meeting. What you envision is what has always been — a panel of individuals
at the front of the room, with one or two microphones positioned in the aisles
where individuals from the audience may voice their comments or opinions. As you
enter the room, you are further amazed by the setup. There are no tables and
chairs for the panel at the front of the room, there is but one microphone
positioned beside a podium at the front of the room, lecture style. Further, the
room is filled with tables — round tables, with six to eight chairs around each
table. For an open public forum meeting, you find this rather odd and ask the
greeter if this is really where you are supposed to be. Yes, you are assured, this
is where the meeting is being held. Somewhat confused, you take a chair. Others
file in, some you know, some you don't. You note that others, like you, find this
new layout for a public forum meeting "different". Soon a speaker calls the
meeting to order. After a short introductory speech the presenter asks for your
cooperation in utilizing a new concept in decision making. Following a
presentation regarding the new purposed plan, each table will participate in a
discussion with the help of a facilitator. Each table will put on paper their
thoughts and feelings about this new community plan — their likes and dislikes. A
roundhouse discussion will ensue at each table from which will emerge a consensus
of the group — a narrowing of the listed likes and dislikes to two or three that
the group deems most important. These, you are told will be later synthesized.
What is going on? You look around and note a look of bewilderment on several other
faces. No explanation is offered; and you, feeling at quite a disadvantage but not
wanting to look like a total ignoramus or fool, are hesitant to ask. You say
nothing and go along. But the feeling of discomfort remains and continues to grow.
What is going on?

A phrase heard a lot these days is paradigm shift. What is described above is part
of that paradigm shift. Parents, community members, citizens, taxpayers have no
idea what they are walking into when they suddenly, and without warning, find
themselves participating in a whole new concept of a "public forum meeting". While
the semantics may vary to some degree from meeting to meeting, the underlying
framework of the process to which the people will be exposed does not.

Under the new paradigm, decision making is to be "decentralized" moving away from
decisions being made solely by elected and/or public officials accountable to
elected officials, moving to decision-making including the people. The "public
forum" meeting and community participation process is the venue for that
decentralized decision-making process.

The decentralized decision-making process is being sold to the people as a "move


to empower the people," a way for people to have greater voice in their governance
and in decisions made that will affect them. This is the rhetoric, this is not the
reality. What people don't know, at the outset, is that the goal or outcome of the
process is predetermined. This is made very clear in book after book on the
facilitative process.

The decentralized decision-making process has three steps. The first step,
unbeknownst to the people, is to assess the people as to "where they are now."
This is accomplished by feeding people information relative to the issue at hand —
be it education reform, land use planning, etc, then soliciting the feedback of
the people relative to the information presented. The feedback solicited is put in
writing, to be later analyzed, assessing the people, as a collective, as to "where
they are now."

The second step is the process of moving the people from "where they are now" to
"where we want them to be" — to acceptance of, ownership of, what is being
advocated by the meeting planners relative to the issue at hand.

Step two has two phases. The first phase is to establish the framework for moving
people "from where they are now" to "where we want them to be." To accomplish
this, people must become "adaptable to change." People whose belief system is
strongly grounded in absolutes, in Judeo-Christian principles, are not easily
manipulated, are not easily "adaptable to change." That belief system must be
changed in a greater number of people if the goal or goals are to be realized, if
sufficient buy-in is to be realized to give the agenda the foreword momentum
needed to achieve the goal. The facilitation process, utilizing up to nine basic
steps, is intended to move people from a belief in absolutes — that right is
right, wrong is wrong, to believing that right and wrong are situational, a matter
of perception, from beliefs holding basis in Christian principle to beliefs
holding basis in humanism (although this is never divulged). For those who refuse
to become adaptable, concession "not to sabotage" or "openly oppose" augments the
forward momentum of the agenda. In some school districts teachers are being
required to sign a charter agreeing not to oppose education reform.

The second phase is to facilitate people into ownership of the preset outcome. The
process of facilitation is intended to produce consensus which means "solidarity
of belief". In other words, through a facilitated process, oneness of mind
theoretically occurs. Consensus holds basis in the Hegelian Dialectic of thesis —
a belief or supposition; antithesis — the opposite belief or supposition; and
synthesis — the synthesizing (bringing together) of thesis and antithesis to form
a new thesis. The process then begins again and through continual evolution,
oneness of mind theoretically occurs. Consensus, however, left to its own devices,
cannot be controlled. As such, a manipulative form of consensus, utilizing
facilitators highly trained in group dynamics, is used to ensure the outcome.
While the facilitators are billed as neutral to the facilitated process of
consensus, they are anything but neutral; they are key to the group reaching the
preset outcome. And, if facilitated properly, the people emerge believing the
decision made — the outcome — was their idea; unaware that they were facilitated
in a certain direction. This, then, sets the stage for the third step. (Click here
to learn more about what is commonly referred to as the Delphi Technique, and
Click here to learn how to disrupt it.)

The third step is accountability. First, the outcome of the facilitation process
is decided; second, the people are facilitated into acceptance of, and ownership
of, the preset outcome; third, authorship of the preset outcome is given to the
people. The people, then, as a collective, become accountable for the decision
made. This is why, when people have objected to being governed by consensus
decisions, they have heard, "but we had the input of the people." What this does,
very effectively, is two-fold — it gives the bureaucracy license to do whatever it
wants under the guise of "doing what the people authorized us, via their decision,
to do;" and second, it makes the people, not the bureaucracy, accountable for
decisions made. The people become at once the scapegoat and the victim.

Most people have no idea, when they become involved in consensus circles, what
their purpose is in the larger picture, that they are being assessed, that their
belief system is being targeted, that they are being used.

What is established, via the consensus process, is covert authority — the same
authority that under girds socialist/communist regimes that justify their
existence and governance structure in the collective authority of the people. In
the Soviet Union, a consensus circle is known as a soviet.

The religion of socialist/communist regimes is humanism. Humanism is a man-


centered religion, believing that man is devoid of spirituality or self-
determinism, that man must, therefore, be conditioned to his environment —
whatever that environment is decided to be. B F Skinner gave this "conditioning" a
name — operant conditioning — a practice used pervasively in classrooms across
America, especially under outcome-based education. Humanism is a pagan, occult,
satanic religion. This is why socialism and communism are oppressive governments;
why they lead people into darkness, into hopelessness, into bondage. Humanism is
what is undergirding the paradigm shift in America, not only in education but in
all facets of the restructuring of the American society.

America was established on Judeo-Christian principles. This was not by accident,


this was by design. Our Founding Fathers knew that there was only one religion
under which any nation had ever prospered; under which man would ever know
freedom. That religion was Christianity. The American government was established
on the principles of Biblical law — a government of laws, not a democracy (a
government of men, humanism) which by its very nature is arbitrary and capricious.

The contrast between Christianity and humanism is the difference between


individuality and collectivism, freedom and bondage, prosperity and adversity,
light and darkness.

What can people do? First people must educate themselves. When participating in
public meetings, insist the meeting be conducted under Roberts Rules of Order — no
consensus circles. It is the elected officials and those accountable to the
elected officials who should be held accountable for decisions made. Pressure
legislators to dispense with appointed commissions, councils, and agencies that
are not accountable to the people and that are, via legislation, not accountable
to the Legislature. Pressure legislators to return to the limited form of
government established by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Such a government
limits itself to addressing those structures over which it is given specific
authority. Push for judicial reform that removes from the judiciary the right to
legislate via interpretations of law that hold no basis in the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson stated, in 1823,

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the
Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and
instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented
against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

To be able to do that, however, one must have a strong foundation in Western


culture and history — something very few Americans have today.

If we are to save our nation, we must become involved in the governance of our
nation — whether local, state, or national. We can no longer sit back and abrogate
our duties as American citizens. We must become informed and involved. The price
of freedom is vigilance. Vigilance has been want for too long.

© January 1997; Lynn M Stuter

The Delphi Technique: What Is It?

How To Disrupt The Delphi Technique, tips on how to protect yourself from those
who would use the "Delphi Technique."

How To Deal With Difficult Parents describes how some administrators are trained
to deal with questioning, opposing and dissenting individuals.

Dealing With Difficult People, the information referenced in "How To Deal With
Difficult Parents" from the Association of California School Administrators, EDCAL
- Volume 25, - April 22, 1996
Unmasking The Crime Against Parents: In many ways, the experiences described in
this article about Plano, Texas parallel those encountered by parents and
community members in Reading, Massachusetts. Reading school administration
"mantra" says one thing but their actions reveal a different intent.

A Reference Guide For Recognizing Political / Social Control Tactics - Useful for
recognizing the tactics of some school officials and school administrators.

Are You Being Delphied? - The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted
group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking
public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public.

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression by DCDave

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a


government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other
techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon
a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you?” gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in
spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious
facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it
must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest
charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant
false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges,
real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,”


“kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily
loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the
“more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair
and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set
up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that


they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan
political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents
to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very
useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as “old news.”

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking


the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and
honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal
“mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position
quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the
fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited
markets.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately
unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly
rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely
free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster “suicide” note was forged,
they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such
evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy
leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was
murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing
distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is
sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the
“facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5 (e and f), have your own stooges “expose”
scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and
to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will
pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What
could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups
defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don't
the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and
television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out
serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough,
but, obviously, it is not.

Tactics of the Trained Facilitator

The following e-mails were received after the authors read the missives sent to
learn-usa.com and accessible from The Web of Deceit – K12®. The authors, Mary
Thompson and Leslie, have done an excellent job of describing the tactics of the
trained facilitator.

Tactics of the Trained Facilitator

I read every word of the exchange of correspondence you posted re: K-12. Your
antagonist is so typical of a couple kinds of people. I have found that ...

1. there is the trained change agent/facilitator whose only means of pseudo debate
is their definition of “dialogue”. It requires other listening “ears” since the
psychology of group dynamics is foundational. Their first consideration is not to
persuade you personally. The objective is to discredit you so you don't influence
others. If their “trained” modulated original tone of “voice” doesn't disarm the
one they are challenging, they go to the next step of “authoritative” tone
designed to impress with “credentials”. When that doesn't work, they challenge the
opponent's legitimacy to express facts. When that doesn't work, the knuckles get
white, the tone of “voice” becomes shrill, and the motives and accusations of
political agenda are used. When that doesn't work, they take their self righteous
leave of the scene implying that the challenged party is not worthy of their time
and warped wisdom.

2. I've encountered another similar, but differently motivated type. They are
sincerely wrong but committed to the erroneous idea. They usually have some vested
interest in whatever they are defending, being part of an organization behind the
program or issue or whatever. They see themselves as spokesmen for not only the
issue, but also the organization sponsoring it. Any criticism of the issue is
construed as an attack on the organization and its representatives. They are truly
blinded by the association of which they are a part. They, too, start out mildly
trying to bring you around with true sincerity. They actually are interested in
changing your mind, individually. As that doesn't work, however, they begin to
question your authority to question the institution or idea. The debate becomes
more strident as with the trained change agent. Ultimately, both do the same
“exit” scenario of being the one to cut off the exchange, dismissing the
challenger as unredeemable.

Long ago when I challenged my church synod about their bragging about being the
first of that denomination to adopt PPBS, I was finally told, “Obviously, you
don't know what you are talking about. We suggest this correspondence cease”. To
this day, I suspect, the official correspondent had no clue what he was defending,
but someone up the chain did.

The passing reference to the Modern Red Schoolhouse leaped out at me. I am
currently reading a book, Commies, A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left
and the Leftover Left, by Ronald Radosh, co-author of the Rosenberg File. In the
book, he has a chapter titled, “The Little Red Schoolhouse” in which he describes
his days as a child of New York Communist Party parents (the commie youth camps,
the schools, etc.). He attended a private school in NY, Elizabeth Irwin School,

“distinctive in that it was a refuge for teachers who would be thrown out of the
public school system because they would not sign the Feinberg Law oath, stating
that they were not members of CPUSA, refusing to testify at HCOUA, etc...”

He says,

“There was a reason why we called the institution we attended 'the Little Red
Schoolhouse for little Reds.”

One wonders about the name of the Modern Red Schoolhouse for the 21st Century.

Mary Thompson

California

Note: There is a book, put out by Teachers College Press, Columbia University,
1995, entitled Schooling for “Good Rebels”; Socialism, American Education, and the
Search For Radical Curriculum by Kenneth Teitelbaum with a foreword by Herbert
Kohl. This book describes the “Socialist Sunday Schools” of New York. In reading
the book, it is hard to miss the parallel to systems education. Kenneth
Teitelbaum, at the time this book was published, was an Associate Professor in the
Division of Education at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamtom.

I was thinking about this last night. Because I had just heard of a positive
response to an on-line debate, I thought about what was the difference.

In the case where the lady responded positive, after some lengthy back and forth,
she actually switched gears from opinion to fact. She went out and did some
background research as she had been encouraged to do. She ate humble pie! She was
willing to admit that yes, she had been only spouting opinion, and an ill-informed
one at that! She went on to sign the WSFH Statement and Resolution.

What a stark contrast to Lynn's debates with this so-called “Gladys.” Some of us
have concluded that “Gladys” and some of these other “ladies” are not real people
at all, but plants from the public policy institutes and think tanks, well-trained
in the exact form of debate that Mary described yesterday, and perfectly willing
to go so far as to engage in very nasty personal attacks and threats.

The days of gentle grassroots activism are over. We are now facing the big boys
head-on and they aren't pleasant. In fact, they aren't pleased that a truly
spontaneous, genuine grassroots movement erupted. They intended to control all
sides of the debate from the Right to the Left, and suddenly a few websites show
up, and a few articles by Lynn Stuter appear, that expose their agenda a bit too
closely.

Leslie

-And there's more at the Learn-usa website, if you can find it and see it properly
in your browser..
http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/~consensus.htm