Well, thankfully, Smart Men are making decisions in Washington D.C. about things like where to put R&D money. Just ask Jed.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree 100% with Alain. Very powerful anti-CF memes are circulating and > cannot be erased by words, just by facts. The many positive achievements of > Cold Fusion from the past have > no continuity and no continuation, are not correlable by some common logic > techno(logic), it is very difficult to compose a coherent, convincing > discourse- for example for a young absolutely ignorant, unprejudiced public. > We need FACTS- new Facts. > > Peter > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>wrote: > >> A serial innovator I'm in contact with, and who is working to make LENR a >> vector of energetic transition, told me that there is no hope to convince >> people until there is a working prototype that we can put on the client >> table, and that clearly work, even roughly. >> >> However as soon as we have a machine on the client table, and that the >> advantages for the client are clear, nothing can block people to use it... >> no lobbies, no regulation, no fear... >> especially todays, where it is clear that people think that the system >> cannot continue as-is. >> >> what make me afraid is that the replication of LENR (like by MFMP), won't >> have any impact.... People , even open mind, seems not to be able to accept >> LENR. >> >> It must make a car run or a plane fly, and even, people will suspect >> fraud. >> normal poeple behave between SDciAm (don't look at facts) or MY (argue on >> tiny points to reject the mass of proofs) >> >> >> 2012/11/7 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > >
