The Delphi method already has the outcome of the meeting planned in advance.
They divide people into groups (you've seen oboma do this), and those groups are suppose to come up with ideas. The "facilitator" watches to see who the group leaders are (It has nothing to do with ideas).
The "leaders" of these smaller groups become the targets of ridicule if they disagree with the facilitators agenda. The facilitator uses pear pressure from the agreeing groups, or the whimps who don't dare speak up, to attack the percieved "leaders" , or people, who disagree with the agenda.
They use created ridicule until their opponents are so attacked, they back down.
All - look up The Delphi Method to understand the manipulations. This is used in the public schools against parents at PTA meetings or community meetings.
thank you
I had looked up Delphi Technique
and then watched that bid i linked to above.
This is chilling
never moreso that when one of the ‘ facilitators” from the firm WRT told one group that personal property rights won’t be affected without public approval. NOT approval of the owner
but approval of ‘ the public’ who were manipulated
This is true. People are likely being Delphi’d directly or indirectly when their public meeting is divided into groups with a facilitator who appears to be recording the ideas brought up in a brainstorming session. It’s in the categorizing, labeling, and subtle combining or dropping ideas that the magic occurs.
The group will probably be asked to agree with these edits. It seems participatory and above-board, but you are correct that the outcome or a range of acceptable outcomes has been predetermined.
Most of the participants will feel a democratic process has occurred, some will feel a vague unease, and detractors will be targeted, personalized and polarized in the Alinsky style. Beware the word consensus. Usually it is anything but.
My experience in public school administration is that the label Delphi is not used. This process goes under the euphemisms of communication skills, or decision-making process.
I have also seen this used by churches, and purpose-driven type programs, where the apparent goal (develop mission statement, ascertain spiritual gifts) is not the real goal ($$, what else?)