The dangers of "groupthink"

[kentuck]

An excellent article by Barbara Ehrenreich and good advice for us all.
=====================================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/opinion/15EHRE.html

<snip>
This is a surprise? Groupthink has become as American as apple pie and prisoner abuse; in fact, it's hard to find any thinking these days that doesn't qualify for the prefix "group." Our standardized-test-driven schools reward the right answer, not the unsettling question. Our corporate culture prides itself on individualism, but it's the "team player" with the fixed smile who gets to be employee of the month. In our political culture, the most crushing rebuke is to call someone "out of step with the American people." Zip your lips, is the universal message, and get with the program.


<snip>
Societies throughout history have recognized the hazards of groupthink and made arrangements to guard against it. The shaman, the wise woman and similar figures all represent institutionalized outlets for alternative points of view. In the European carnival tradition, a "king of fools" was permitted to mock the authorities, at least for a day or two. In some cultures, people resorted to vision quests or hallucinogens — anything to get out of the box. Because, while the capacity for groupthink is an endearing part of our legacy as social animals, it's also a common precondition for self-destruction. One thousand coalition soldiers have died because the C.I.A. was so eager to go along with the emperor's delusion that he was actually wearing clothes.

Instead of honoring groupthink resisters, we subject them to insult and abuse. Sgt. Samuel Provance III has been shunned by fellow soldiers since speaking out against the torture at Abu Ghraib, in addition to losing his security clearance and being faced with a possible court-martial. A fellow Abu Ghraib whistle-blower, Specialist Joseph Darby, was praised by the brass, but has had to move to an undisclosed location to avoid grass-roots retaliation.

The list goes on. Sibel Edmonds lost her job at the F.B.I. for complaining about mistranslations of terror-related documents from the Arabic. Jesselyn Radack was driven out of her post at the Justice Department for objecting to the treatment of John Walker Lindh, then harassed by John Ashcroft's enforcers at her next job. As Fred Alford, a political scientist who studies the fate of whistle-blowers, puts it: "We need to understand in this `land of the free and home of the brave' that most people are scared to death. About 50 percent of all whistle-blowers lose their jobs, about half of those lose their homes, and half of those people lose their families."

[sendero]

1. I heard...

.... an author on the Diane Rehm show last week. He wrote a book, about decision making using groups versus individuals.

His claim is that a group of people will always (within certain constraints) make a better decision than even the brightest individuals.

He pointed to many studies and examples. But, he admitted there are pitfalls. For example, in a group setting, people who are more vocal have more influence even though they might not have the best ideas.

My point is this - I wish there was another term for this instead of "groupthink". Because thinking back on my professional life, I have not one doubt that a group of people will make a better decision than an individual - but only if everyone gets to contribute and is heard.

What we had leading up to the war was not "groupthink" at all, it was "echo chamber" - a self-enforcing group of people all spouting the same bullshit, some of them knowing full well it was bullshit. There was no attempt to make the right decision, just make the one Bush* wanted.

[rogerashton]

2. A group will make a better decision --

to the extent that it engages in discussion and deliberation. That is why we should favor DELBERATIVE democracy.

I have run a few informal experiments -- more or less by accident, originally -- in my classroom. In more formal experiments, there is nothing new about this result, but, again, it has often been found by accident in experiments looking for other things.

Groupthink (from 1984) means just the opposite -- conforming to the group norm dictated by Big Brother. And I think the term is accurate in this case.

[kentuck]

3. I've noticed that a lot of groups have a leader....

and the rest of the group will follow that leader and validate their findings as something unanimous.

[sendero]

5. Very true...

.... and the author I spoke of mentioned that groups that work well do not have a leader.

[kentuck]

7. But is that really "groupthink" in the sense of political thought?

To get a group together to find a solution to a problem in the workplace is not analogous to groupthink in the media or the masses, in my opinion.

[sendero]

10. Perhaps...

... but I've seen the results of groupthink (where a leader proposes a solution and the groups spends all its time supporting the idea or shooting down detractors) many, many times.

In a corporate environment, a good leader will assemble the team, explain the problem, and listen to the proposed solutions. S/He may point out an issue with a particular solution, but will not make it clear that s/he prefers any particular solution.

This kind of team will make the best decision. If the leader has a particular solution in mind and pursues it, the ass-kissers (there are some in every group :)) will jump on it and take over the meeting.

There is little doubt in my mind that this dynamic is what led everyone to get behind Bush*/Cheney in the leadup to the war.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Excellent piece by Ehrenreich -- thanks for posting, kentuck!

[Tosca]

6. Jon interviewed Wolfie the other night on the Daily Show.

The subject was the press' abject failure to question the run-up to the war.

STEWART: So what does the media do differently ?

BLITZER: I think we learned from our mistakes and try to do it better next time.

STEWART: Specifically.

BLITZER: Specifically, we learned from our mistakes and try to do it better next time. We look back and we say, "You know what, we should have been more skeptical."

STEWART: But...Wolf...Come on! It was a...

BLITZER: We're trained to be skeptical by our very nature, that's what journalists...

STEWART: Why weren't you? Because people...

BLITZER: I think we could have been more skeptical, I think we...

STEWART: Are they afraid of the Bush administration? Is the Bush administration so ham-handed that - ham-handed, and this is coming from a Jew who knows nothing of ham - but are they so forceful that they have intimidated the press corps into NOT asking those questions?

BLITZER: No. The answer's no.

STEWART: So...is the press corps, and again I'm gonna use the word, suffering from groupthink? OR...OR...or another word, retardation?

(Audience explodes in cheers as Stewart grabs Blitzer by the shoulder and rocks him)

STEWART: Come on! Tell me the truth! I want to know! I'm really curious. I'm baffled.

BLITZER: It's groupthink. Not retardation. You know, when you're told repeatedly - and I was told going into the war...everybody said the same thing. There is no doubt, there are stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and it's only a matter of time before he has a nuclear bomb. Condoleezza Rice said on my show..."We can't wait for a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." You remember that?

STEWART: And as it turns out, Pakistan had already sold mushroom cloud material to every country in the area BUT Iraq! It's crazy! The whole thing's crazy!

[lanparty]

11. Stewart was easy on him ...

Two TRUTHS of media ...

The truth is that they may have been TRAINED to be skeptical, but they're PAID to tell stories. The better the story, the more people listen. Ultimately, the guys who tell stories that the executives like get better raises. Thats why there is a right-wing bias in large media sources.

One thin that few people bring up is the natural conflict of interest that the media has with warfare. Put simply .... WAR SELLS. War sells newspapers, magazines and television advertising. War is effectively a movie. William Randolph Hearst knew this better than anyone when he pushed us into the Spanish American War.

The media will ALWAYS be in favor of warfare. It is in their self interest. They always have been and ALWAYS will be.

[Tosca]

12. Agreed.

But it was still hilarious to see Wolfie blindsided and reacting in a non-authoritative newscaster/bloviator voice. You take the desk, script, and microphone away from these guys and they come off as dazed entertainers looking for a little wiggle room.

[CWebster]

8. ABB

The other side of the coin..."Instead of honoring groupthink resisters, we subject them to insult and abuse..." Who do you suppose fills that role?

The tyranny of the majority

[kentuck]

9. I agree, CWebster.

:)