SF talk about the Delphi method…
Here’s a description of the Delphi Method
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…more
And here’s a description of General Synod 2010
We don’t agree—and what is at stake is sustaining a community within the context of a complex and conflicted argument about its moral life. This has shaped the Council of General Synod’s decision of how to bring the sexuality discussions to GS 2010. The result is a process that will allow for conversation and listening first, before putting forward a motion. Members of synod will participate in a set of discussions. The content of these discussions will be used to shape the resolutions that will then come to the floor.
The starting point for discussion will be the House of Bishops’ statement of October 2008. This is a public statement issued after the experience of Lambeth by our church’s leadership, who in themselves embody the diversity of theological, scriptural, ecclesiological, and pastoral commitments present within the church. It shares something of their discussion and struggle and outlines that which, within the challenge of disagreement and diversity, the bishops were able to affirm. It serves to guide the church, naming both requests and hopes for the church as we continue to discern the movement of the Spirit in our midst.
Each discussion group will be facilitated by a synod member. A recorder, recruited locally from outside the synod membership, will be provided for each group. A collation of the discussions will be prepared by the reporters with Bishop Linda Nicholls, chair of the Primate’s Theological Commission, and myself as chair of the Faith, Worship and Ministry committee. The prolocutor, Canon Robert Falby, will share the results in plenary. Printed copies of both the complete collation and the summary documents will be made available to GS members between discussion sessions.
What do you think about this different method of discernment for controversial issues at General Synod?…more
I have actually seen this at work at a diocesan synod. Even though our table actually arrived at agreement and the summary was completed to everyone’s satisfaction, nothing in the final statement (which was supposed to embody the collective statements from all the tables) reflected our summary in the least. We naturally assumed that it must therefore reflect the majority opinion, but upon questioning others their summaries were not recognizable either! It appeared to those who conferred that the final statement was probably already decided upon before the process began and reflected the desired outcome! Desired by whom we could not really determine…
This is exactly what is stated in the planning process for General Synod and I am again repeating my remarks which are posted in that segment.
“This report shows those involved in the planning of the General Synod are following the directions of the master of the apostates. Rather than dealing with the truth of the current situation in the ACoC they plan to soften up the orthodox attendees by pretending to accommodate their position. By doing they trust there can be an understanding of what they would consider equality. This is nothing less than a trap designed by the evil one to allow the reign of apostasy to continue.
The suggestion is that there needs to be equality in dealing with homosexuals within the church when in reality the current situation seriously misleads them into thinking their activity can be blest. Homosexuality is a sin just the same as theft, pedophilia, lying, etc. and each and every one of us has sin tendencies related to our personality, upbringing and other factors. That is our old nature and we are called to repent on a continual basis. The only questions that need to be addressed at Synod are:-
1. Are we prepared to accept the uniqueness of Jesus Christ?? and
2. Are we prepared to accept the full authority of Scripture? This does not mean that such authority is subject to the passing of any motion that is clearly contrary to that authority, or worse still, the approval of so-called bishops.
Tragically it appears that the ACoC through the apostasy of many in the House of Bishops including the Primate will continue in its rapid descent into apostasy and irrelevance. They are definitely following the directions of their master rather than accepting the authority of the MASTER.”
I’ve been in situations where they’ve said, “The consensus is….” I’ve shaken my head and voiced my disagreement, “There are 2 viewpoints”. In the end they had to write down both points.
A thought from the glue factory;
“The end justifies the means”
Only in the Lord’s Christianity, not withstanding “Grace” is this argument actually directly opposite to the truth. The Delphi method indeed. Thanks again Peter.
I stand corrected, upon further investigation (I am a lazy horse) the “Delphi Project”, when used truthfully for its intended purpose which is to arrive at consensus, also subscribes to the complete opposition of my quote in #4.
The Delphi method was intended for making predictions (“most probable future”), not determining or building consensus. In fact, the Wikipedia article even has a section on just that, and on the varitions to attempt consensus determination. One of those would be somewhat apposite: The Policy Delphi but that seeks
The Eagle Forum item cited by SF is a double corruption of a legitimate tool – first, the facilitator is not neutral, and second, the tool is being used for the wrong thing. Nasty stuff.
***
“What do they teach them in these schools” section – this reminds me of Aristotle’s distinction between “democracy” and “polity”. The old peripatic maintained that the corrupt form was “the majority rules for the benefit of the majority”, and that he called democracy. The case cited here is obviously a corrupt form; engineered with an agenda. You can’t even call it a hidden agenda, taking the description above.