The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases.- Thomas Paine, Common Sense
There is a big difference between on-the-level opinions and off-the-level opinions. This is also a major source of confusion regarding Technidigm-2000 applications. First, it is important to stress that off-the-level people are everywhere, seeking to promote their agendas even when our notions of common sense are challenged. There is little we can do with such distorted perspectives except recognize them as such and keep them from achieving undue influence.
It should be clear to you by now that Technidigm-2000 stresses the value of integrity. This means that, even when we do not have all the facts on an issue, we are at least open to the views of others and we acknowledge that we do not have all the facts. When we are on-the-level and give an opinion with such an acknowledgment of basic ignorance regarding the facts, we are at level 1 of Technidigm-2000.
Normally, we view opinions as non-substantive and relatively useless in getting problems resolved. However, if we choose to view opinions as starting points in the problem resolution process, then we can start to solve problems rather than let them languish forever, cycling between on-the-level and off-the-level. As I describe in later sections of this chapter, there are three other levels that eventually lead us to problem solutions.
Important also in understanding opinions is that experience counts even when we do not have very many facts available to us. Everything else being equal, the opinions of older and wiser people normally serve as better starting points for problem solving. While I am not the oldest and wisest person you have ever met, I have provided several on-the-level opinions in the form of short essays, which you can find and read under the heading of applications, specifically in chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Those chapters address the range of popular topics that you read about all the time in the newspapers. Each chapter focuses on opinions in a particular category, starting with the U. S. Constitution (6), then politics (7), then government (8), concluding with a chapter on going forward from here (9). The last chapter reflects my dislike for the opinions of all of those people who write editorials and books and tell us what is wrong without providing much help regarding what to do now.
Why do I write so much stuff on non-nuclear topics? As an expert on nuclear plant safety issues, I would only confuse you by giving you examples of level one opinions in the nuclear safety area. Thus, I have provided you with enough opinions on non-nuclear topics that you should be able to find at least something that interests you.
It is important to accept the fact that I am trying to be on-the-level in offering these level 1 opinions, but it is also important to try to understand all such opinions and issues in terms of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements. When we cast our opinions in terms of the 12 elements, then we are setting the stage to move to higher levels and to get problems resolved. It does us little good to offer opinions on issues at level one, honest or not, if we do not intend to pursue the issues to resolution at higher levels.
My offering opinions on constitutional, political, and government issues probably reflects my oath to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution. All of us who entered the military for whatever reason had to take such an oath. Many of us have only paid lip service to the notion of defending our country and Constitution, so a little emphasis in that area may be productive. Next to saving the world from a nuclear power plant disaster, there are few topics that would motivate me to spend the time offering opinions.
What is level 1? It is one of the four communication categories of Technidigm-2000. Communications at level 1 contain one or more opinions regarding an issue. Since opinions may involve little or no relevant knowledge, ability, or experience, level 1 individual capabilities may approximate the level of knowledge of a high school graduate with no significant practical experience. Of course, even the most educated and experienced among us may also offer an opinion, and it is usually appropriate to "consider the source" of an opinion. Nevertheless, an opinion is just an opinion and is often poorly substantiated. Opinion polls only tell us how a vote on a topic might have come out at the time the poll was taken.
For most problems, opinions solve nothing and can be misleading. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, opinions serve as starting points for developing answers to issues or programs to address problems. At level one, we often focus on one problem at a time and are not particularly concerned with topically-relevant system interfaces. It is not because we don't know what some of the other typical areas are. We just don't know for sure what all of them are -- and we may never know.
A single fact may form the basis for an opinion, but such an opinion is of little validity regardless of the wisdom of the person having the opinion. For example, a person might see an airplane fly near another airplane and offer the opinion that they nearly collided and that something needs to be done to ensure that it does not happen again. This observer would not necessarily know the related facts such as whether the pilots could see each other's aircraft or whether air traffic controllers were directing them.
Even with such additional information as input, the observer would not necessarily have the experience to determine the risk of collision. Yet, in the absence of a more knowledgeable and experienced observer, the level one opinion that the airplanes were in danger will probably have a chance of making the evening news. Knowledge and experience properly applied at level one will often reduce controversy simply by injecting the idea that additional relevant facts are needed before forming a substantive opinion on just about any issue.
Opinions are not good or bad, right or wrong. They are simply opinions. They are a starting point and are most often not sufficient to provide a solution. We may like the opinions of political candidates because they are similar to our own opinions. If the candidates are on-the-level, then we are potentially at a starting point for getting at good solutions to problems.
Thus, the election of candidates to public office based on their opinions is not a bad concept as long as the candidates are on-the-level. This, of course, is the problem -- candidates have learned how to appear to be on-the-level and have had no requirement to actually be on-the-level. In a political world of sound bites, polls, and spin, it is quite difficult for honest and honorable people to be elected, and many of them would not even try. This unfortunate condition can be challenged using Technidigm-2000. Some level one examples of how such conditions can be challenged are provided in the application chapters.
Now that I have made a big deal about the limitations of opinions relative to being on- or -of-the level, I must point out that some off-the-level opinion making processes will probably always be with us, Technidigm-2000 notwithstanding. In some areas, such as businesses involving sales, false opinions are usually critical to success. A buyer's emotions or impressions are generally more important than facts.
Realistically, people often act on opinion and emotion even when they are aware of the countervailing facts. When people reach decisions based only on opinion and emotion, they may be following the "path of least resistance," a path that we take all the time. When level one is both the start and end of an issue or problem, we are less likely to be successful the first time around. In the nuclear safety business, opinion and emotion are particularly troublesome. When it comes to spending billions of dollars on trial-and-error government programs, the level-one-only risk is less onerous.
Regardless of the risk or money involved, while we can elevate our own thinking to the higher levels of Technidigm-2000, we may not presume to elevate or change emotional responses of others above level one or to change their impact on the decisionmaking process. We need to recognize those responses for what they are and give them the consideration that they deserve. Just because our opinion may be "right" or "better" does not mean that we will be able to proceed beyond level one and try to achieve a "perfect" solution to an issue or problem.
In the case of nuclear power, the prevailing opinion in the United States is mostly opinion and emotion driven, resulting in no new orders to build new nuclear plants. Fortunately, the "do nothing" approach to nuclear power is in some respects safer and less problematic, at least for the time being. However, as the world runs out of petroleum, gas, and coal to produce energy, nuclear plants will probably become more attractive if not necessary.
Also, if the environmental effects of burning fossil fuels result in unacceptable world-wide climate changes, the expanded use of nuclear power may become part of a solution process or program. As most engineers already know, stable systems such as the world's environment demonstrate their stability by staying the same, at least on the average. It is like "rocking the boat" when we spew increasingly large quantities of combustion products into the environment. Once a stable system "capsizes," it is usually too late to solve the problem. "Natural disasters" and "acts of God" that result from our own actions (or lack of action) are neither natural nor holy.
Whether or not we have a culture in place that is able to deal effectively with such emergent technical problems is dependent on what we do now. You have now been exposed to some of the basics of Technidigm-2000. Are you going to part of the solution or part of the problem?
Continue in this chapter:
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page