How to manipulate groupthink
January 27, 2005 9:55 AM Subscribe
How to manipulate groupthink: Create a group participation technique that looks and sounds equitable and solicits feedback. Use the feedback to isolate leaders, loudmouths, pushovers and those who agree or disagree with your hidden agenda. Set these groups against each other until your hidden agenda moves from a subject for debate to a principle accepted as true that frames the debate. Start a cable channel! Hope America doesn't learn how to fight back.
Or, simply move to the moon.
posted by sharksandwich at 10:05 AM on January 27, 2005
posted by sharksandwich at 10:05 AM on January 27, 2005
I agree completely!
posted by leotrotsky at 10:05 AM on January 27, 2005
posted by leotrotsky at 10:05 AM on January 27, 2005
OK, that looks like an interesting and worthwhile topic for an FPP, but you need to work a bit harder on your links. Two of them go to the same text on different webpages, and two of them go to a completely unrelated biography of the inventor... then a google search which doesn't seem to actually connect Fox with the technique in question...???
Good idea, terrible execution
posted by Spacelegoman at 10:08 AM on January 27, 2005
Good idea, terrible execution
posted by Spacelegoman at 10:08 AM on January 27, 2005
OMG I AM DISRUPTING TEH THREAD
posted by Spacelegoman at 10:09 AM on January 27, 2005
posted by Spacelegoman at 10:09 AM on January 27, 2005
some less kooky descriptions of delphi technique
...and this seems apt
posted by leotrotsky at 10:17 AM on January 27, 2005
...and this seems apt
posted by leotrotsky at 10:17 AM on January 27, 2005
Thank you for the link to Google! I would have never thought to look there other wise!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:17 AM on January 27, 2005
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:17 AM on January 27, 2005
Okay, other than a few outsiders, what are some other examples of why my metafilter post was brilliant? Come on, be brave. I know we got some smart people out there.
posted by basilwhite at 11:08 AM on January 27, 2005
posted by basilwhite at 11:08 AM on January 27, 2005
From the Delphi link:
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 of aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not fall for this tact. 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.]"
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 that time, the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation or expose. Then nicely with focus and persistence, state, "But you didn't answer my question. My question is --" and repeat your question.
Now where have I seen this tactic used recently? Oh yes, Dubya's "news conference!" He never directly answers a question it seems at times, if at all, especially if doing so might make him uncomfortable with his dissonance.
"Want to buy some wood? Huh-huh!" Who says you can't train monkeys?
posted by nofundy at 11:16 AM on January 27, 2005
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 of aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not fall for this tact. 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.]"
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 that time, the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation or expose. Then nicely with focus and persistence, state, "But you didn't answer my question. My question is --" and repeat your question.
Now where have I seen this tactic used recently? Oh yes, Dubya's "news conference!" He never directly answers a question it seems at times, if at all, especially if doing so might make him uncomfortable with his dissonance.
"Want to buy some wood? Huh-huh!" Who says you can't train monkeys?
posted by nofundy at 11:16 AM on January 27, 2005
Nothing new. Employers have been using those techniques for years now.
Foster a sense of ownership and empowerment amongst the employees. Politely listen to, but ignore everything that they have to say. Identify those who don't march to the tune, and deal with them appropriately.
posted by C.Batt at 1:52 PM on January 27, 2005
Foster a sense of ownership and empowerment amongst the employees. Politely listen to, but ignore everything that they have to say. Identify those who don't march to the tune, and deal with them appropriately.
posted by C.Batt at 1:52 PM on January 27, 2005
Excerpt from Alinsky's "Reveille for Radicals". Disturbed me.
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/support/Assignments/alinsky.html
posted by basilwhite at 2:44 PM on January 27, 2005
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/support/Assignments/alinsky.html
posted by basilwhite at 2:44 PM on January 27, 2005
basilwhite: Okay, other than a few outsiders, what are some other examples of why my metafilter post was brilliant? Come on, be brave. I know we got some smart people out there.
I'm pretty dim, but I'll try to offer some positive advice in a helpful, friendly manner:
1. Each individual link in your post should only show up once in the post, i.e. linking two snippets of text to the same URL is considered poor form.
2. The two linked articles found at the URL's ending in "delphi.htm" are slightly different versions of the same article. Linking two snippets of text to the slightly different versions of the same article is considered poor form.
3. I spent time reading the other articles to which you linked, but I still didn't get the relevance of the google search results. Maybe you're trying to say that Fox is using Delphi techniques pioneered by Alinsky? Google search results are generally not considered "best of the web," so use them lightly, and then only when they're clearly relevant and add real value to the post.
So, to sum it up: In any post: only link to any specific URL once, only link to the single best of several marginally variant options, and only link to google searches whose relevance is abundantly clear.
Otherwise, the info on Delphi and Alinsky was interesting. I'm sure I have read some of it before. It seems like common sense, but it's a good thing to keep in mind when you find yourself in one of these groupthink situations.
posted by syzygy at 2:38 AM on January 28, 2005
I'm pretty dim, but I'll try to offer some positive advice in a helpful, friendly manner:
1. Each individual link in your post should only show up once in the post, i.e. linking two snippets of text to the same URL is considered poor form.
2. The two linked articles found at the URL's ending in "delphi.htm" are slightly different versions of the same article. Linking two snippets of text to the slightly different versions of the same article is considered poor form.
3. I spent time reading the other articles to which you linked, but I still didn't get the relevance of the google search results. Maybe you're trying to say that Fox is using Delphi techniques pioneered by Alinsky? Google search results are generally not considered "best of the web," so use them lightly, and then only when they're clearly relevant and add real value to the post.
So, to sum it up: In any post: only link to any specific URL once, only link to the single best of several marginally variant options, and only link to google searches whose relevance is abundantly clear.
Otherwise, the info on Delphi and Alinsky was interesting. I'm sure I have read some of it before. It seems like common sense, but it's a good thing to keep in mind when you find yourself in one of these groupthink situations.
posted by syzygy at 2:38 AM on January 28, 2005
Wait, let me ramble on about something irrelevant for ten minutes to distract you from your beliefs before we continue.
posted by basilwhite at 7:03 AM on January 28, 2005
posted by basilwhite at 7:03 AM on January 28, 2005
Basilwhite, I'm not falling for that trick. Come closer so I can scream in your face and then punch you!
posted by billsaysthis at 5:18 PM on January 28, 2005
posted by billsaysthis at 5:18 PM on January 28, 2005
« Older ET, Moan Home! | Mojo's Top 100 Soundtracks of All Time. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rushmc at 10:04 AM on January 27, 2005 [1 favorite]