The Overton Window: questions abound

As usual, when I need to learn something, I came across an interesting thing I didn’t know about. It’s called the Overton Window. And basically it is a schematic to help visualize how to structure change in society. (just replace or remove the politics references in the below paragraph and replace with your word or choice, like Phenomena, or UFO…you get the point.)

The Overton window is an approach to identifying which ideas define the domain of acceptability within a democracy’s possible governmental policies. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to convince or persuade the public in order to move and/or expand the window. Proponents of current policies, or similar ones, within the window seek to convince people that policies outside it should be deemed unacceptable.

After Overton’s death, others have examined the concept of adjusting the window by the deliberate promotion of ideas outside of it, or “outer fringe” ideas, with the intention of making less fringe ideas acceptable by comparison.[5] The “door-in-the-face” technique of persuasion is similar. From <>

This was a concept used for politics, however it can be applied to any set of ideas and their acculturation into society. Think about that in relation to our genre- the UFO/Phenomenology topic – what could they possibly be trying to get us to accept by giving us ideas they think are from further out there??? (and they’re idiots, because the further out the ideas, the better we like to play with them. Jus say’in)

The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, describes the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, who, in his description of his window, claimed that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within the window, rather than on politicians’ individual preferences.[1][2] According to Overton’s description, his window includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office. From <>

Just remove the words political and politician and policy, and you have a model for introducing any fringe ‘idea’ and its subsets into society gradually by discourse – talking about, or programming via media (TV movies books radio, etc.).

As you might imagine, this is also used in advertising to sell products, because that is also the art of changing the values of people to convince them they need as ‘thing’.

Question; Does legalizing a set of words make it a more concrete idea in today’s society? And, Does making it worth money give it a special power or purpose or ability to be used that ‘normal’ words don’t have?

Looked at from a historical perspective the ideas and definitions of phenomena have gone through radical change, from dark demonized frightening ideas, to things like interdimensional and ET.

category idea set

Unthinkable Limitless dimensions Ultimate source
Radical 13 dimensional string theory Our universe
Acceptable 3D – 6D Angels
Sensible 3D – 4D ET
Popular 3D fixed Gov’t Nuts and bolts
Policy 3D now People
Unthinkable 2D prison Demons

It’s a progression of thought that leads people to open up thinking about topics. This is also represented by something called Hallin’s Spheres.

Sphere of consensus – the consensus ‘We’

This sphere contains those topics on which there is widespread agreement, or at least the perception thereof. Within the sphere of consensus, ‘journalists feel free to invoke a generalized “we” and to take for granted shared values and shared assumptions’.[3] Examples include such things as free speech, the abolition of slavery, or human rights. For topics in this sphere “journalists do not feel compelled to present an opposing view point or to remain disinterested observers.”[1]

Sphere of legitimate controversy – balanced discourse

For topics in this sphere rational and informed people hold differing views. These topics are therefore the most important to cover, and also ones upon which journalists are obliged to remain disinterested reporters, rather than advocating for or against a particular view.[4] Schudson notes that Hallin, in his influential study of the US media during the Vietnam War, argues that journalism’s commitment to objectivity has always been compartmentalized. That is, within a certain sphere—the sphere of legitimate controversy—journalists seek conscientiously to be balanced and objective.[5]

Sphere of deviance – the giggle factor

Topics in this sphere are rejected by journalists as being unworthy of general consideration. Such views are perceived as being either unfounded, taboo, or of such minor consequence that they are not news worthy. Hallin argues that in the sphere of deviance, ‘journalists also depart from standard norms of objective reporting and feel authorized to treat as marginal, laughable, dangerous, or ridiculous individuals and groups who fall far outside a range of variation taken as legitimate.’[6] For example, a person claiming that aliens are manipulating college basketball scores might have difficulty finding media coverage for such a claim.[7] From <>

Phenomena in our circle of thought has gone from something separate from the UFO question to becoming included as a part of continuum of a wider set of ideas, right up there with consciousness.

UFO’s for ‘normalized’ society has moved from deviance into legitimate controversy. Which means that it is now out of the demon arena into the nuts and bolts arena. When you see how many analogous comparisons can be made it becomes obvious that we are being acculturated to a set of ideas that needed a progression. However that progression is happening with a spin on it and those of us who have studied this since Christ lost his sandal, know this.

And then there is this tricky idea of attaching monetary value to an idea. There is an alchemical sort of thing going on there way beyond just the value of intellectual property. IMO

Sooo, this is a science. I know on some level we are being had, but on another level, is it so wrong to dream? But maybe its not so nice to surreptitiously make money off another’s dreams, or ours, for that matter, especially in a world where it looks like the only thing that’s going to be left after is all said and done are engrams in some gigantic AI somewhere….

One thought on “The Overton Window: questions abound”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s