Any topic with unknown aspects (to the audience) or controversy require special handling because in that uncertainty people's personalities step in, and that is the seed of misunderstandings becoming institutionalized.

When an individual has gained group prestige from their "theory" being accepted, they then guard that prestige with omissions of information that counteract their position, and deferment of blame when proved incorrect. This is the ordinary human response, and will play out unless the participants have formal communications training that break this pedestrian cycle.

Communications is far more than just "communicating with another". Self communications is the gargantuan invisible elephant yet to be realized by larger society, and is the source of gullibility. Group communications has fractal complexities that play out depending on how many participants are trying to collaborate, and their relative hierarchical power verses one another. Entire careers are spent identifying the categories, and this area is largely unexplored, unexamined. It's too interpersonal and laced with extreme levels of power for honest analysis.

And then there is AI: a communications technology that people think is an automation technology, and our colossal communications tragedy is not going to correct this misunderstanding.

There has been a massive, decades long educational failure in the United States, and probably the entire western hemisphere of culture: no where are people taught how to manage disagreement. due to that, we have this moronic destruction taking place where "idiots of authority" see no reason not to dismantle anything that irritates them, and nobody has the langage to explain nor the peer power to stop the desolation of our entire supporting infrastructure. All because idiots of power do not like being told and proved they are wrong. So, power removed the education that taught people how to debate without emotions, and here we are.

I get significantly better results by pre-prompting each LLM (they can be the same LLM too, just another instance), I pre-prompt them to approach from a different perspective. Basically, I create expert personas that each believe they are someone of a different career, different intellectual perspectives, and then that generates a real debate between experts.

Serious question: I find that the core issue in corruption, and the corruptibility of an individual and then the groups they are a member relies on plain spoken communication skills, and the ability or inability of an individual to protect themselves from self deception.

A "uncorrupt person" does not choose to be corrupt, they lie to themselves with little corruptions until "it is too late" and then with no (self assessed) alternative they commit to their situation.

As well as a group of people knowingly engaged in less than ethically honest activities must impress their ethical failures on all their peers, to insure their safety if the corruption is exposed, and they then bully their uncomprehending peers into corruption.

All of this is caused to the educational hole that is effective communications: people are not taught how to identify honest and dishonest self conversation, people are not taught how to communicate without information mistakes they refuse are mistakes, omissions of critical information, and then deferment of blame when half considered strategies are met by complex reality.

I've been working in tech, at all levels, since the 70's. The #1 characteristic of every single organization I have been a member and interacted with is poor communications, weak documentation, and nobody able to discuss the topics at hand without technical pretension, omissions, misdirections, and misinformation.

This nonsense is all due to no real emphasis on communicating to mutual understanding anywhere in the verticals of technical and science educations. And that includes the communications in people's heads that drive them to comforting non-solutions they attempt and fail.