Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!ames.arc.nasa.gov!lamaster
From: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware
Subject: Re: GroupThink
Message-ID: <40069@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 9 Jan 90 00:00:28 GMT
References: <10211@zodiac.ADS.COM> <129710@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1990Jan5.220525.9114@siia.mv.com> <90006.101744UH2@PSUVM.BITNET>
Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA - Ames Research Center
Lines: 17

In article <90006.101744UH2@PSUVM.BITNET> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes:
>One way that Delphi and other similar methods try to avoid Group Think
>is by using anonymity.  In short, low status right-thinkers can stand up to
>higher status wrong-thinkers because it is harder to know exactly who
>they are.

I thought that Delphi was supposed to also identify distinct differing
opinions, as well as a consensus if it exists.  At least, that is what I
have read.  The idea would be that the opinions cluster around a number
of consensuses.  The hope is that these clusters would be much smaller
than the number of participants.  Is this not correct?


  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117