Problems>Solutions>Innovations

Lyn Buchanan's CRV

Consensus Analysis and Reporting

In consensus analysis and reporting, things are only consider as reliable information if there is agreement between the findings of several viewers. If something is perceived by four out of five viewers, it is given more importance than something which is perceived by only two of the five. Anything perceived by a minority or by only one is usually not even reported.

Also, if one reported fact does not "jibe" with the other reported facts, it is usually thrown out, no matter how many viewers reported it. An example here can be taken from one investigation done by an organization which uses consensus reporting: Several viewers reported a ship. The information that had been sent to the analyst plainly described a desert setting. Most of the other perceptions by the viewers (even the ones reporting the ship) gave desert-like descriptions. The "ship" perception was therefore thrown out of the final report because it did not make sense. In this particular case, the actual location turned out to be a quite well known desert mesa which was shaped like a ship and bore the name of "shiprock". If the "ship" description had been reported to the investigating police officers, in spite of not making sense, it would have narrowed their search time by days and possibly have saved the life of the missing person.

While consensus reporting makes for a more well-organized and better-sounding report, it has proven time and again to be extremely error prone. It is not at all unusual for ten viewers to perceive one thing, with an eleventh perceiving something which contradicts them, only to find out later that the one was correct and the ten were wrong. The "reason" (excuse) which is usually given in this case is that the ten were "picking up on each other's thoughts (neighbor's CAT or telepathic overlay)"

Consensus analysis and reporting is even more error prone because the analyst or report writer, unlike the viewers, usually knows many of the facts of the case, and tends to pick through the viewers' information, pulling out and reporting only that which fits his predetermined beliefs (STRAY CATS).

Another drawback of concensus analysis and reporting is that, in throwing out a viewer's findings, it in effect negates the use of that viewer and tells that viewer's subconscious mind that it can't be trusted, and that it is logic which is more important than perceptions. In effect, it is destructive to the viewers.

Whatever reasons are found for using concensus analysis and reporting, the fact is that it is rarely effective, very error-prone, and harms the viewers. In short - it just does not work.

See also, "statistical analysis and reporting".