You know what would be really swell, Jed? If you went onto Reddit ( http://www.reddit.com/r/AMA (Reddit's AMA (=Ask Me Anything) -forum)) and identified yourself like this: I'm a Cold Fusion / Low Energy Nuclear Reactions archivist, ask me anything
or any permutation of. that should get interesting. On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > I have been reading some interesting articles about public opinion and the > 2012 campaign. I have also been hearing directly from people in the Obama > campaign. > > New methods of reaching the public have been developed in the 21st > century. The Internet and social media are used to coordinate campaigns, > gather support and encourage people to vote. > > I think we should make use of these techniques to promote cold fusion. > Perhaps we do not need to do that now. We don't have the resources. > However, if it becomes widely known that cold fusion is real, I predict it > will become the focus of intense political activity. We will need to launch > public relations campaigns. We should think about this now. We should > prepare for it. As a practical matter I hope that I can contact some of the > people in the Obama campaign to assist us. > > I have mixed feelings about using the manipulative methods of political > campaigns and Madison Avenue. I find them distasteful. However we need > these methods if we are going to win. Cold fusion is inherently political > in many ways. We must deal with political realities. > > Both Republicans and Democrats made use of new techniques, but the Obama > campaign in particular hired a cadre of young, hotshot social scientists > who are pioneering new methods. These methods are first and foremost > pragmatic. They have been refined with field tests and actual data from > respondents. These researchers have discovered a number of facts and new > techniques about persuasion and public opinion. Some of them overturn > widely held conventional ideas. Here's an interesting example. In a > campaign the goal should not be to persuade people in the middle so much as > to: 1. Hold onto one's own set of supporters; 2. Persuading moderates on > the other side. > > Suppose the range of opinions on a political issue can be quantified such > that a range of responses are graded from 1 to 10. Extremists in support of > your side are at 1 and 2; people at 5 have no strong opinion; and people at > the opposite extreme are at 9 and 10. I mean that when you ask a question > people fill out numbers, the way people grade movies at Netflix. Your > campaign should strive to hold onto people from 1 to 4, and it should reach > out to people at 6 and 7 rather than 5. They are more likely to come over > to your side than the people at 5. > > To take concrete example, in the third debate we saw Romney espouse > foreign-policy positions very similar to Obama's. I think it is likely he > did this deliberately in response to this recent public opinion research. > He was trying to win over moderate Democrats rather than middle-of-the-road > people or extremists on either side. In other words, if we say the > continuum runs from 1 for extreme Democrats to 10 for extreme Republicans, > Romney was trying to appeal to people at 3 or 4, rather than 5. In previous > campaigns the target would be people at 5 or 6. Romney was trying to win > over moderately conservative Democrats who have stronger opinions than the > "undecided middle," or "persuadable man in the street." It turns out that > people who already have some opinion on the subject are more persuadable > than people who have no opinion, even when the former have an opinion > somewhat against the one you wish to sell them. > > Applying this example to cold fusion, I target the papers and > presentations at LENR-CANR.org to persuade physicists and engineers who are > moderately opposed to cold fusion, rather than physicists who have no > opinion about cold fusion. I should target professionals and those who have > some standing and knowledge of physics, rather than people who are in the > middle of the road, and people who have no opinions and nothing invested in > the question. > > This may seem counter-intuitive but it has been tested field tested with > large groups of people and I think it is probably correct. > > I will go through my browser history and buy some books, and report more > about this in the coming weeks. > > In the 1980s and 90s, political campaigns about many techniques from > Madison Avenue and commercial public opinion research firms. Starting in > 2000 for the Democrats in particular began developing their own social > science theory and public opinion theories. As I said, Obama has hired some > of the most ambitious hotshot talent in this field. The DNC invested > millions of dollars in computer databases and analyses. Some of these are > superior to the best commercial efforts, and starting this year Madison > Avenue is beginning to reach out to the campaigns instead of the other way > around. > > As noted here in previous discussions, some corporations such as > Amazon.com and Target have superb data mining and marketing techniques. In > some instances described by the New York Times and others, the Target > supercomputers were able to identify women who are pregnant before the > women themselves realized they were. This is creepy. I have mixed feelings > about it. But it is a fact of the 21st century. We do not have the > resources to take advantage of this sort of thing, but if cold fusion > breaks through to the headlines and engenders a monumental political > battle, we might suddenly have such resources. We should think about how we > might use them. > > I do not think it is possible for cold fusion to become a practical source > of energy without a monumental political battle. It may succeed technically > but if we lose the political battle opponents will block it and prevent it > from being used as a practical source of energy. > > At present there is no opposition from fossil fuel companies and other > powerful vested interests, because no one at these organizations is aware > that cold fusion exists. Once it becomes generally known that cold fusion > is real I am certain the vested interests will spend billions of dollars to > prevent commercialization. I find it inconceivable they would not do this. > > There are number of other interesting new sociological discoveries made by > campaign researchers. Plus some old techniques revived from the 1930s. For > example, one of the reasons the Obama campaign was so anxious to a gather > campaign contributions even small amounts is not so much that they needed > the money (although they did need it) but more because after a person > donates $5 or $20 to a campaign, he or she is more likely to vote in favor > of the candidate. A person who donates a small amount of money feels > "invested" in the campaign. A person who spent an hour for one afternoon at > the Obama office making phone calls or stuffing envelopes also feels > invested and is much more likely to go out and vote. > > Applying that lesson to cold fusion, if we can persuade people to make a > small contribution to promoting cold fusion, such as writing letters to the > editor, or writing letters on web sites or to their Congressman, it is > more likely they will support a public relations campaign against fossil > fuel opposition at a later date. > > As I said, we may find these things distasteful, but if we ignore them the > opposition will beat us to a pulp. The good news from the 2008 Obama > campaign is that smart, motivated 20-year-old kids can beat the pants off > professional political operatives when the stars are aligned and the > motivation is right. We have good hope this will be the case with cold > fusion. The Obama kids that year ran rings around middle-aged Republican > experts. I saw this first-hand. They Republican experts were 6-figure > salaried consultants. They wore $2000 suits. The Obama kids were working > for peanuts -- I mean literally, they were paid nothing more than piles of > junk food! They were dressed in sweat suits and stocking caps. They knew > social media that the middle-aged consultants had never heard of. The > kids clobbered the consultants then. They clobbered them again this year in > all the swing states. Even if you disagree with everything the Obama > campaign stands for, you should take note of the fact they pulled off one > of the most technically effective campaigns in U.S. history, and they used > every new 21st century tool available. Some comments from CNN today: > > > "When it comes to the use of voter data and analytics, the two sides > appear to be as unmatched as they have ever been on a specific > electioneering tactic in the modern campaign era," Sasha Issenberg, a > journalist and an expert in the science of campaigning, wrote just days > before the election proved him right. "No party ever has ever had such a > durable structural advantage over the other on polling, making television > ads, or fundraising, for example." > > > . . . one top Republican told CNN: "Their (ground game) deal was much more > real than I expected." > > > We are going to need those kids. > > There were plenty of smart kids working for Romney too, and we can use > them as well. There was plenty of fraternization -- the two sides know one > another well. > > Getting back to the dark side . . . > > My mother knew a great deal about manipulating public opinion, persuading > people, lying, distortion and the various subterfuges used on Madison > Avenue. After she died I went through her papers and found some hilarious > correspondence between her and some 1950s Madison Avenue marketing experts > who had amateur notions that she debunked in aprofessional journal article > and a series of follow-up letters she published. She also recommended the > wonderful little book by Derrell Huff, "How to Lie with Statistics." This > is essential reading to anyone involved in marketing or politics. Just > about every cheap shot and stupid trick relating to numbers that you see > practiced by advertisers and politicians is described in this book. It is a > goldmine condensed to 142 pages. Let me quote the introduction: > > "This book is a sort of primer in ways to use statistics to deceive. It > may seem altogether too much like a manual for swindlers. Perhaps I can > justify it in the manner of the retired burglar whose published > reminiscences amounted to a graduate course in how to pick a lock and > muffle a footfall: The crooks already know these tricks; honest men must > learn them in self-defense." > > - Jed > >
