GroupThink Defined

http://www.bikerights.com ^ | 9/28/02 | unknown

[tpaine]

Eight "Symptoms" of Groupthink

1) Illusion of Invulnerability
2) Belief in Inherent Morality of Group
3) Collective Rationalization
4) Stereotypes of Out-Groups
5) Self-Censorship
6) Illusion of Unanimity
7) Direct Pressure on Dissenters
8) Self-Appointed Mind-Guards

----------------------------------------

GroupThink - Defined

"When, the norm for consensus (solidarity) over-rides realistic appraisal of information and appropriate courses of action to achieve the group's 'stated goals'."

Making decisions in a group is complicated by intellectual, social and psychological factors. Groups seek, analyze and use information differently than individuals.

Groupthink is a type of thinking/behavior that people become susceptible to when unanimity (solidarity) becomes more important (unconsciously) than the group's motivation to review and deal with information and action.

Groupthink is a defective decision-making process that can arise when members of any group favor "consensus seeking" (as in solidarity) over information processing. Groupthink is more likely to arise when the group is highly cohesive and simliar to the exclusion of other points of view within the group. This is not to suggest that Groupthink is a product of only "fanatical" groups as the definition might imply. On the contrary, many groups of well-meaning responsible individuals can find themselves simply making bad or limited decisions based on "harmony of the group" verses the information at hand. Groupthink occurs in varying degrees and is usually unknown to the members effected by it. The more congenial the members of a policy making in-group, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by Groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against out-groups or individuals.

The classic example of Groupthink used by many group studies is the Bay of Pigs where the inner-core group surrounding JFK could and would not "see" the readily available information clearly indicating that the invation would fail miserably. How was it possible that such intelligent top level advisors including the President could make such a disasterous decision? Groupthink. Solidarity became the driving force over information. JFK wanted to overthrow Castro and his advisors were unconsciously motivated by a need to support the President above all else to the exclusion of understanding the correct, yet contrary, data at hand or listening to the few advisors that tried point out the disaster that lie ahead. As is characteristis of Groupthink, the "dissentors" either gave in to intense internal pressures to support the President or were pushed out of the group. This is all well documented and a stunning example of how a group can state a goal and then not act properly to achieve it. With Groupthink, the stated goals become confused or replaced with an underlying unconscious goal of unanimity (solidarity). Extreme examples of Groupthink range from cults to mass suicides to genocide.

[NorCoGOP]

Other groupthink examples: Shuttle Challenger explosion, the Clinton Lewinsky scandal.

I've done groupthink training in companies before - it's a very destructive force, if left unchecked. Knowing what to look for in symptoms and how to counter them have led various management groups to surprising new results...

[Greeklawyer]

Are you postulating that the Democrats are suffering from goupthink? I can truthfully state that university professors are completly into leftist groupthink.

[RLK]

The classic example of Groupthink used by many group studies is the Bay of Pigs where the inner-core group surrounding JFK could and would not "see" the readily available information clearly indicating that the invation would fail miserably.

---------------------------------------

This assertion, itself, is the result of groupthink. In about supper of 1994 I went to a lecture by Kennedy advisor Arthur Schlesinger Jr. He called the free Cubans an "embarrassment" left over from the Eisenhower administration. The leftist intellectuals around Kennedy believed contesting communism was contrary to the force of history at the time. The invasion force was promised air support. When they hit the beach, the promised air support was denied at the critical moment leaving the free cubans to be killed. Two napalm bombs would have caved in Castro's army. Schlesinger laughed about it.

[tpaine]

Yes, we have seen some fine examples of its destructive force right here at FR over the years.

[tpaine]

ALL political groups suffer from groupthink.
Wise leaders take actions to counter. Demagogues rouse the rabble.

[martian_22]

Always identify the images the groupthink revolves around.

[tpaine]

~Two~ napalm bombs would have caved in Castro's army? -- I'm no expert on the BoP's, but from what little I've read, thats ludicrous.
That Schlesinger cynically laughed about it, -- I can believe.

[tpaine]

Political science's best kept secret:

We are, ~all~ of us, useful idiots.

[RLK]

Castro was not well liked. There was little home support for him. His military was poorly motivated and looking for opportunity to quit. An display of support for the invasion would have been a source of security for those in Castro's military to disobey Castro. The invasion forces were concentrated on the beach and needed a breakout point as well as an intimidating display of support. Any air support would have turned the battle.

[IronJack]

Don't kid yourself. Groupthink is hardly limited to the Left. There are disturbing signs of it in camps much closer.

[Grut]

There are disturbing signs of it in camps much closer.

How can you possibly say that? We denounce you!

[Enough is ENOUGH]

On the contrary, many groups of well-meaning responsible individuals can find themselves simply making bad or limited decisions based on "harmony of the group" verses the information at hand.

Envision, if you will, a group of gazells descending on a water hole inhabited by lurking crocodiles. One or two of the gazells might sense the unknown danger hidden in the murky waters yet they guardedly join the ranks of the others feeling somewhat secure in the safety of numbers.

Thwapp! The mighty reptiles strike. Their muscular jaws clenching the necks of their unsuspecting prey, dragging their bodies struggling for freedom and air into the murky depths of their watery grave. The process repeats over and over again because this process is one of the laws of nature.

We humans have the ability to rise above this. I have said before that I feel safest hearing from people who are courageous enough to express dissenting views. Views that are based on logic and with valid premises.

[tpaine]

That was the JFK groupthink prior to the invasion, yes.
They then reneged. Why?

[Fred Mertz]

You got dat right, brutha!

[tpaine]

I never kid myself. - See #5 & 6.

[tpaine]

"I have said before that I feel safest hearing from people who are courageous enough to express dissenting views. Views that are based on logic and with valid premises."

Exactly. -- I've learned far more from trying to understand my opponents POV, and attempting to counter that view, than from shouting him down as a fifth columnist.

[not that that isn't fun, when all else fails]

[IronJack]

I see that. Shoulda read the whole thread first.

[ArneFufkin]

If groupthink is attribute to "Bushbots" you are right.

We trust him.

All of us came to that conculsion through our own individual measures of honesty, wisdom and leadership, but that's pretty much my Bushbot story. Any other Freeper who trusts Bush is groupthinking with me I guess. Shazam.

[IronJack]

Any other Freeper who trusts Bush is groupthinking with me

I didn't mention Bush anywhere.

Delusions of grandeur and paranoia are both treatable.