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.

[schmelvin]

It's too bad this turned into a "flame war". I should've known that this thread would degenerate into FReeper bashing and accusations of "FR groupthink"; I just didn't expect it to happen so quickly.

Very sad, because you posted an interesting topic, one that could've generated some thought-provoking responses.

This could've been a great thread.

[Sabertooth]

Any other Freeper who trusts Bush is groupthinking with me I guess.

I don't think trusting Bush is what qualifies one for groupthink on FR. I generally trust him on a number of matters, positively on most, even if sometimes I trust him do do the wrong thing on a few out of some foolish consistencies of his.

Groupthink occurs on FR with the shrill, screeching denunciations and attempts to stifle all disagreement with the President, regardless of the merits of the particular case at hand.

That there are pro-Bush demagogues on FR is hardly disputable. That says more of them than it does him, as I believe him to basically a good and decent man.

All cults of personality ought to be avoided.

[tpaine]

FR has always had a self styled politically correct group that runs about after JR, trying to accomodate his rather wandering outook into their own basic authoritarian philosophy.
-- The resulting chaos is frequently amusing as hell, but is not one that generates thought-provoking responses or 'great threads'.

Now and then, when these groupthink groupies are prevented from dissrupting the forum, FR quickly returns to its base purpose and some great discussions.
- Maybe we'll see another such period return after the elections. But probably not.

[tpaine]

"All cults of personality ought to be avoided."


Well said. And some here who are encouraging these behaviours should know better. As JR recently reiterated:


"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere."
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

[Roscoe]

Willful ignorance and question begging are common groupthink traits.

[Zon]

Yes, we have seen some fine examples of its destructive force right here at FR over the years. 5

ALL political groups suffer from groupthink.
Wise leaders take actions to counter. Demagogues rouse the rabble. 6

The antithesis to group think is to "think outside the box". Two examples in which their sum is greater than the parts.

If you think a person's marijuana (drug, pornography, gambling, vice, etc.) use has harmed you, take the person to court and do your best to prove it to an impartial jury. After all, that's would you'd do if a person robbed you, right?

This forum is used by some people that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf.

[Zon]

And quit following me around you twisted old fruit.

You entered this thread by your own free will at post #19. A thread that tpaine started and you chose to inject yourself into. Certainly appears from here that you're the one following tpaine around. Why is it that you chose to discredit yourself with your above baseless accusation? Because you didn't Think First!

Regarding your personal attacks, 'nuf said.

[Zon]

Yet on one of your recent posts on the SD jury nullfication thread, you say:

Do you have a link or Keyword to do a title search on. I'd like to read that thread.

[tpaine]

Yes indeed roscoe.
I've remarked on your willful ignorance and question begging traits on many occasions.

[tpaine]

RE #86/87. Well said. But take it easy on Mr. TwistedFruit.
-- I think arnie was crying out for help. We must be gentlemen about his pitiful condition.

[tpaine]

His hypocrisy is evident at post #7:

South Dakota Opponents Gang Up on FIGA-style Libertarian Intitiative
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/759192/posts

[Zon]

Gee wiz. I thought I was taking it easy with arnie ;^) -- being on the forum since February 26, 1998. Slow learner I guess. I mean, how long does it take to learn not to come out swinging with a baseless charge since it only serves to work against the person slinging it? That's rhetorical, no response encouraged.

Thanks for the link.

[schmelvin]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to whine or anything. I guess I was just looking forward to seeing the "groupthink" topic covered on a broader basis: mob rule/democracy, rioting, "groupthink" & public education, "groupthink" in the Middle East, etc.

I can understand why people living under tyranny would be more likely to succumb to "groupthink", because they know that sticking their head up, could get them decapitated. But, I have to wonder why people in a free society would voluntarily jump on the "groupthink" bandwagon.

Since we've narrowed the topic to FReepers & Bush Jr. "groupthink", I'll state my position on that. I like Bush Jr. and think he's a good man. I'm, also, very grateful that Gore is not our President. I don't blindly agree with every single thing GWB does, though. (I disagree with his stances on immigration, his reluctance to arm commercial airline pilots, and a few other things.) Much of the time I do agree with him and I trust him, but I know he's not perfect.

He's a hard man to judge, because I believe he plays his cards close to his chest to keep his enemies off balance. The only problem with that, is it sometimes keeps us guessing, too. Only time will tell, and I plan on giving him the full 8 years worth; I'll be voting for him again in '04.

[weikel]

Yep I even find myself resorting to groupthink when I read stuff bythe few peaceniks here LOL.

[weikel]

Bump( although Ive taken more of a sinister view of Bush since that operation TIPs crap I now nolonger view him as any way on our side attempting to create a Stasi is inexcusable and unforgivable).

[ArneFufkin]

tpaine wants his rectal temp taken, Zon, as only you can. Stand in line, IronJack has first dibs and he's a little possessive when it comes to servicing his little rodent friend.

Don't lecture me bozo. Useless parasites are no longer to be humored. There was no reason for IronJack to respond to me the way he did. Do you have any doubt that the group that IronJack was referring to in post 11 was directed at the pro-Bush crowd, especially since he was winky winking at his girlfriend tpaine?

IronJack is a bullying slob.

I'd chase you around the forum, zon, but pro-drug and pro-pornography threads aren't my taste. If you're one of tpaines little groin-stroking elves, keep it to yourself, it's embarassing to watch.

[Zon]

No response from ArneFufkin to the below post (#87). tpaine did respond to that post.

To: ArneFufkin

[ArenFufkin to tpaine:] And quit following me around you twisted old fruit. [30]

You entered this thread by your own free will at post #19. A thread that tpaine started and you chose to inject yourself into. Certainly appears from here that you're the one following tpaine around. Why is it that you chose to discredit yourself with your above baseless accusation? Because you didn't Think First!

Regarding your personal attacks, 'nuf said.

87 posted on 9/29/02 4:58 PM Eastern by Zon

tpaine's reply to Zon::

RE #86/87. Well said. But take it easy on Mr. TwistedFruit.
-- I think arnie was crying out for help. We must be gentlemen about his pitiful condition. 90

Zon's response to tpaine:

Gee wiz. I thought I was taking it easy with arnie ;^) -- being on the forum since February 26, 1998. Slow learner I guess. I mean, how long does it take to learn not to come out swinging with a baseless charge since it only serves to work against the person slinging it? That's rhetorical, no response encouraged. 92

AF's response/attack on Zon:

To: Zon

tpaine wants his rectal temp taken, Zon, as only you can. Stand in line, IronJack has first dibs and he's a little possessive when it comes to servicing his little rodent friend.

Don't lecture me bozo. Useless parasites are no longer to be humored. There was no reason for IronJack to respond to me the way he did. Do you have any doubt that the group that IronJack was referring to in post 11 was directed at the pro-Bush crowd, especially since he was winky winking at his girlfriend tpaine?

IronJack is a bullying slob.

I'd chase you around the forum, zon, but pro-drug and pro-pornography threads aren't my taste. If you're one of tpaines little groin-stroking elves, keep it to yourself, it's embarassing to watch.

96 posted on 10/1/02 2:57 PM Eastern by ArneFufkin

Your entire #96 post is irrelevant and nothing but obfuscation. IronJack had nothing to do with your #30 post to tpaine nor my #87 post to you. The issue is as I stated in my post #87. -- posted at the top of this posts and again quoted below:

"You entered this thread by your own free will at post #19. A thread that tpaine started and you chose to inject yourself into. Certainly appears from here that you're the one following tpaine around. Why is it that you chose to discredit yourself with your above baseless accusation? Because you didn't Think First!

"Regarding your personal attacks, 'nuf said." 87

You shouldn't assume that I'm an incompetent as you. For I am fully able to reconstruct the discussion.