Level two communication on an issue includes one or more facts and no opinions. In this situation, someone has actually made an effort to learn the basic, factual information related to the topic. All of the currently available topical information is present, and it is accurate. For most topics, we associate level two knowledge with that of the college graduate or the very experienced high school graduate. Level two also includes those minor system interfaces (discussed in more detail later) that are within the topical framework of the applicable discipline. It does not include all the applicable "interfaces" with other functional areas that are beyond that discipline, although many of those might be identified at level two.
For example, level two facts might include information such as that two airplanes which flew dangerously close to each other were actually under the close direction of an air traffic controller and that the pilots could easily see and avoid each other. Level two might also include facts or data on how often airplanes which fly that close to each other actually collide or cause problems for each other. However, it would not include an analysis of data relative to the specific event. Also, depending on the character of the specific issue or question being considered, not all of these facts might be needed.
A sufficiently complete set of level two information within a topical area, such as air traffic control, might not include facts under other topics critically important to the issue. This might occur after the issue has been considered more circumspectly at level four. For example, if the question is whether improvements should be undertaken in the air traffic control system, we might initially be missing the necessary financial information regarding the costs of such improvements. This is information that is crucial to deciding whether realistic corrective actions could be taken, assuming corrective actions were needed. Nevertheless, level two compilations would normally be equated with a college student research paper.
At level two, we simply are not aware of other topical areas that might be involved, much less the relevant level two facts for those other topical areas. We could get indications that a problem exists (e.g., the passengers were concerned), but such information barely exceeds level one opinions, and we seldom get a complete set of level two topical facts without a sustained effort to do so. Even with dedicated effort, we have our problem-resolution and decision-making "blinders" on until we get to level four. We would not be able to decide at level two whether the air traffic control situation needs to be corrected simply by collecting all the facts and data related to the issue. Even if such a need were made clear by level two facts, we would not be able to determine how it should be upgraded.
Level two facts, like level one opinions, may make the evening news, but they are also insufficient to place an issue into its full context or to solve a problem. Most of the information provided by the news media is at level one, with a limited attempt to achieve level two, factual credibility. Said another way, until all of the necessary and sufficient facts are present, an issue remains at level one -- unsubstantiated opinions. The news media provide us with what is often a very entertaining mixture of opinions and facts, optimized to capture our attention while avoiding responsibility for distortions of context.
Where time allows, news organizations often attempt to prop up the credibility of their stories by calling on experts (level three, state-of-the-art researchers -- described below) to offer their "expert opinions" on the issue being discussed. More often, however, news organizations must rely on the level one opinions of relatively polarized advocates (special interest groups) for comments on the different sides of an issue. In either case, level one advocates and level three experts may be on-the-level, but they are not likely to come close to having the true and complete set of facts needed to address the issue in its proper context. As will be discussed below, issues are most reliably discussed in their proper context at level four.
Under the current news media paradigm, it is not viewed as the news media's primary obligation to decide or convey which side is credible or whether a story is being presented in a fair manner. They simply claim impartiality, which is not necessarily something that leads to fairness or realistic solutions. Indeed, the news medium that strays too far from level one opinions (including using level two incomplete facts and even level three research expertise) will not likely have much of an audience.
Such is also the case for institutions other than the news media, at least under the current social paradigms, that encourage polarized debate and result in questionable decision making processes. For example, under the current political paradigm, politicians argue mostly at level one, hoping that their opinions will match the emotions of under-informed voters. Of course, there are politicians who are short on basic forms of integrity, so they may be somewhere below level one -- off-the-level.
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page