Yesterday I watched Smerconish on CNN as I often do on Saturdays. One segment of the show was about a very recent development in the coronavirus crisis. On October 4th the Great Barrington Declaration, a document advocating a particular COVID-19 strategy, was signed. Ten days later a response, THE JOHN SNOW MEMORANDUM, was published in The Lancet. Subsequently, there has been much discussion about these two documents.
Michael Smerconish had a supporter of each strategy on his show. Each was given an opportunity to present the essence of the documents and to critique the opposing view. Smerconish encouraged viewers to read each document and make up their own minds. He indicated that the documents were not long and were not technical. It all seemed very civil.
I read both documents and I would like to share my views. The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration seem to be well credentialed experts in the infectious disease field. They seem to be supported by thousands of people, many also with impressive backgrounds. The supporters of THE JOHN SNOW MEMORANDUM seem to be well credentialed experts in the infectious disease field. They seem to be supported by thousands of people, many also with impressive backgrounds. But I was impressed by neither document.
Consider an alternative approach.
Imagine seven infectious disease experts sitting in a circle discussing COVID-19 strategy. Unlike the above scenario, it would be immediately obvious that the issue is complex and that presenting only two views is overly simplistic. Imagine that each expert is very aware of the incompleteness of their own knowledge. And each is aware that their own lived experience is unique and inevitably colors their opinions. Each is aware of their own personal biases which they openly acknowledge. Consequently, each expert is highly motivated to listen carefully to the other six. All realize that as a group a better COVID-19 strategy would emerge which would be better than what each individually would be capable of producing.
Now imagine that around the circle of seven experts sits a circle of eleven average and ordinary people.The experts are discussing the issue in a manner that can be understood by the nonexperts who will be the final decision makers of the formulation of COVID-19 strategy. The experts and nonexperts do not isolate themselves within their own group but all freely discuss everything with everyone.
Which approach is more likely to produce the better COVID-19 strategy?
Now I would like to propose something that is a step beyond both of the above scenarios. Imagine that the seven experts and eleven nonexperts all have considerable experience with practising Collective Presencing. Can we begin to get a glimpse of the enormous difference this could make?