Talk:Groupthink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Groupthink (one word, no hyphen) was the title of an article in Fortune magazine in March 1952 by William H. Whyte Jr. Groupthink is becoming a national philosophy, he wrote. Groupthink being a coinage -- and, admittedly, a loaded one -- a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity -- it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity -- an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well. From "Groupthink" by William Safire, New York Times, August 8, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/magazine/08ONLANGUAGE.html?ei=5070&en=adbb7cfcf50278d1&ex=1111554000&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1111439516-/aJ0aGnYjQC73HfN1cKACw

Shouldn't this page be merged with communal reinforcement Andries 20:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Groupthink is quite a well known term. Is that the case for communal reinforcement ?

I am not a good person to ask because I am not a native speaker of English. Communal reinforcement sounds academic. I like the term groupthink better because it is directly clear what is meant with it even if you have never heard the term. Andries 20:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Although groupthink and communal reinforcement are two different topics (the former being the result of the latter), they are similar enough that they could be combined. My preference though is to keep them seperate. mydogategodshat 20:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep them separate. Groupthink is dealing specifically with decision making in relatively small groups, not about how social beliefs form across a larger society. Social psych. versus sociology. Taak 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Taak, first I thought you were right but the word 'commune' is in the definition. Communities can be small and large groups. If communal reinforcement doesn't apply to groups then it should have been called e.g. social reinforcement.Andries 08:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Communal reinforcement is a term (linked to classical conditioning theory) that descibes the influences of repeated claims on a community, that is, it is about the effect of the social environment on the group. Groupthink is about the decision making process within the group. Community reinforcement may influence groupthink decision making processes. So Taak is correct, the process of reinforcing claims happens at a macro level and is in the domain of sociology, whereas the process of group decision making is in the domain of social psych.

Having said that, it is possible to have reinforcement processes at the group level, and it is also possible to have group decision making at the societal level, But these are exceptions to the general rule. mydogategodshat 08:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If Taak and mydogategodshat are right then the names have been chosen in a very strange way. I mean, "think" is in the word groupthink that deals primarily with decision making. And "commune" in the communal reinforcement that deals with the society at large. It doesn't sound logical to me but, of course, language and expression are quite often not logical. Andries 09:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment. Groupthink is about the process of decision making at the group level. That is, it is typically a decision making process that occurs within groups. Community reinforcement is about the macro influences on a community. That is, it is typically a broad societal influence that affects communities. I agree however that the external/internal distinction must be see only as generalities, much like the sociology/social psych distinction. mydogategodshat 09:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Groupthink and Pluralistic ignorance are extremely similar theories derived from a subset of examples of Social Proof and Diffusion of responsibility. I suggest that these articles eventually be merged to discuss the variety of theories related to decision-making in social situations. CheshireKatz 20:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1 Criticism of the groupthink phenomenon
2 Describing 1984 as an "ideological novel"
3 US Senate Intelligence Committee example is bad
4 Individualism
5 Uncited statements removed from article
6 Community
7 a picture?

[edit] Criticism of the groupthink phenomenon

I think the article should also report on criticism directed at the phenomenon. There is, for example, very little empirical evidence supporting 'hard groupthink' in which, as Janis defined it, all eight antecedents of Groupthink are active. Janis states that cohesiveness of the group is one of the most important antecedents, but research by Fodor & Smith (1982) and Esser & Callaway (1984), shows that this antecedent does not seem to predict groupthink. Another criticism is that groupthink is sometimes being applied too easily to all situations where decision-making in groups went wrong. There are other perspectives on decision-making in groups that can also explain why some groups make bad decisions, such as the political perspective (which states that actors in groups use political strategies to fulfill their own needs) or decision-making perspectives (which focus on how the decision-making proces itself can be flawed - such as using a satisificing strategy instead of an optimizing strategy).

You seem to know about it. Why not write it up yourself? --Taak 05:37, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Describing 1984 as an "ideological novel"

I just changed the line in this article which read "ideological novel Nineteen Eighty-Four" to "novel Nineteen Eighty-Four". It's a minor point, but one I thought quite interesting:

(1) All novels are, to some extent, ideological; (2) What did the wikipedian who originally described the novel as "ideological" mean? That the novel was ideological in a negative, Marxist sense? That it was ideological in that it potrayed a set of ideas (as any novel must do, see above)? Or that it was a novel about ideologies, which it most certainly is? I would be happy with the word if it was the third meaning which was intended, but that isn't clear: it would certainly need to be rephrased. I considered changing "ideological novel" for "novel which considers the workings of ideologies", but that didn't seem quite right in this article.

Which brings up a set of quite interesting questions regarding authorial intention and editing... --James Kemp 4 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

since it is actualy entitled 1984 instead of being written out in words, i changed the way the book was refferenced 151.197.202.81 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Senate Intelligence Committee example is bad

While there were undoubtedly elements of groupthink involved with this incident, I believe this is a poor example to use as there are more important factors at work than groupthink; primarily the fact that this was a leadership driven decision, rather than group decision making. The decision was fully consistent with the leadership's strategy, and there was considerable dissenting opinion. If people disagree with the above on partisan political grounds, then that is even more proof that the example is bad. Sorry, I dont have a better example right now. --Tim 83.245.88.71 09:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The example feels a little off to me, too, mostly because it's labeling a situation as groupthink by the outcome rather than the group mechanisms. Symptoms 1-4 don't seem applicable. The rest seem to hinge on pressure that might have been coming from top IC officials and/or the administration. This doesn't seem to be an autonomous decision situation so much as a subordinate framing one, particularly if administration officials expressed a strong preference for a particular interpretation. Maybe it would be better referred to as a rare mention of the "groupthink" term in current events rather than as an example. The most useful course would probably be to add better examples for which there is solid information about group dynamics, but unfortunately I can't think of any now, either. - RamseyK 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One does tend to judge on the basis of the outcome, without even being involved with the process.

Also groupthink seems to occur with specific issues while the same behaviour is not evident with most other decisions taken by the same group. Gregorydavid 11:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Intelligence Committee's report is an excellent example of groupthink. While we rarely get to observe the process of high level committee meetings, we are left only to evaluate the outcomes of those meetings. It seems to me that the committee's conclusion that groupthink had, indeed, occurred is correct. bgriff, 6 Nov 2006

[edit] Individualism

Groupthink is one of the most serious mechanisms paralyzing organizations. Conformity can deaden human capacity to think and create. It can lead to mindless fads. At its worst a "madness of crowds" can set in which can cause much suffering and immense destruction - e.g. extreme forms of racism and antisemitism, genocide and democide (as the Holocaust, the close to 100 million killed by international Communism, the Cambodian killing fields - and on a smaller scale during the French Revolution's guillotine fever and the Church's Inquisition), and grossly aberrant activity such as the Jonestown mass suicide.

The antidote seems to be individualism. Notable are the following quotes from the Kotzker Rebbe:

"If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you. But if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you!"

"Just as it is the way of an ape to imitate humans, so too, a person, when he has become old, imitates himself, and does what was his manner previously." ("One who grows old is like an ape." Midrash, Kohelet Rabba 1:3)

LPfeffer May 24, 2006

[edit] Uncited statements removed from article

A crucial facet of the groupthink phenomenon is that it is a pathology, and that any group so organized is dysfunctional. ^{[citation needed]} Generally speaking, the members of any group suffering from this pathology will not only disregard advice contrary to their views, they cannot even comprehend it. ^{[citation needed]}

Despite the intuitive and romantic appeal of traditional groupthink theory, it does not fare well when compared to simpler psychological explanations of group decision making. ^{[citation needed]}

Hmm, how do we think these comments apply in light of the publicgirluk issue? I'd say Wiki (and say Slashdot) are primo examples of groupthink. I have no problem in classifying Slashdot as dysfunctional, by and large. I am sorry to see Wiki heading the same way.Greglocock 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)