Journalism (and politics) hardly seems to do source research, hardly comes up with a rebuttal, and even seems to ignore critically (but serious) sounds. Articles by dissident scientists are collectively refused by the MSM in collective exclusion.
There are lots of examples of not explored possibilities, omitted information, and neglected statistics by experts. Experts in the Advisory Boards have been canonized. Even the press no longer asks critical questions,
When we proposed in the first blog post about coronavirus that the slow reaction and lax attitude of institutions can partly be explained by the phenomenon of groupthink, we could not imagine that later on groupthink would assume an even more dominant role in tackling the crisis. In the beginning, warnings about an emergent pandemic …
Our hypothesis is that a lack of thinking skills among governments, health institutions and the population has seriously contributed to the spread of the Corona virus
On one side, the great issues of this century – such as, for example, climate change and nuclear weapons – require a global community; on the other, immigration and nationalism form the basis of the defense mechanism of those threatened by globalization. Try new and creative lines of thinking.
Classical rational policy analysis and interactive policymaking are basically reactive concepts. An innovative policy can only come about if policymakers redefine themselves as designers instead of problem solvers.
What if you could reimagine the global cooperation? What would it look like? Psychological profiling is big money! Especially is you use it to make a digital coup and create personalised political advertising. By using big data it may be possible to change the way we vote. This approach may according to rumours already have …