Talk:Groupthink/Archive 1

Archive 1

Political Vandalism

Bay of Pigs I like the way this invasion which was initiated by the CIA under Eisenhower is depicted as a groupthink problem of Kennedy's cabinet. No reputable source supports this view (such as the CIA report, where it is clearly a groupthink problem of the CIA). Nor does the even-handed Bay of Pigs Invasion, though you'll note many related pages have been defaced (see this page and Bay of Pigs).

It was a problem of Kennedy's cabinet because they had the opportunity to stop it and didn't. No one in the cabinet dissented preferring to court favor by agreeing with their boss. It is a shared responsibility in that Eisenhower's administration (remember the CIA is a bureaucracy in the executive branch) saw it start, and the CIA was permitted to go through with it when Kennedy met with Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell to discuss proposed changes to the invasion site. And yes there are reputable sources; see Robert Dallek's An Unfinished Life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrlak (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin of term

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)

I think this line needs to be removed/edited: "The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte in Fortune." It was not coined by Mr. Whyte. It was well-known before the article was written. If you need a citation, pick up a copy of 1984, published in 1949. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.2.209 (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree with the above, groupthink was originally used in this context in Orwell's 1984. applying it specifically the the business world is just a natural extrapolation of Orwell's work. And if you have read 1984 you would understand that he does use groupthink like this. And for the person below, why in Christ's name do you think that because he appended -think to words that that invalidates his primacy in authorship? If anything this demonstrates his veritable originality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.131.194 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the word "groupthink" is actually used in Orwell's 1984. He used words like "doublethink", and "groupthink" obviously built on this construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.184.129 (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I've expanded and revised the Baron 2005 survey... WNDL42 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Actually, it *is* entitled Nineteen Eighty-Four, not 1984. Iantnm (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Surely the point is that Irvine Janis believed that it was an example of groupthink. Holly 20 May 2007

==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

Stricken for a lack of relevance; it appears that this passage has more to do with arm-chair theorizing on how to 'cure' groupthink. It lacks evidence is pedantic. To be included, it should be more concise with appropriate references. Briholt 06:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  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. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

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. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

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)

Community

Wikipedia:WikiProject Community has a slight amount of interest in this article. CQ 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

a picture?

The picture at the herd website of pigeons using herd instinct is fascinating. Maybe a photo of humans in a situation of groupthink?

it's a kinda vague topic...like photographing epiphany Beefpelican 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a pic of Bush, Rumsfeld, neo cons and Blair in conference, convincing themselves that peace and democracy could be created in Iraq, just by sheer belief with no need to put the requisite troops on the ground or have the right resources in hand before they invaded.Koonan the almost civilised 09:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a picture of a member of a group, sitting at a computer, looking at that picture, and in an exercise of groupthink, deleting it minutes after you've added it? ;-) Digwuren 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why just America?

I have to admit that I had to do some research on this in college - just as the internet was coming into it's own, so before Wikipedia. My point is that the major examples of "Grouthink" have always been American. Has any research been done regarding this phenonmenon happening outside of America? Does this occurance happen because of differences in the ethics/morality/beliefs in the American way of life? I ask as a purely academic interest and not as a negative stance towards the USA.

Most likely, it's merely a matter of academic environment and resources. Psychology as we know it nowadays was not something that could be significantly studied before the twentieth century; on twentieth century, most of the smaller countries considered many other areas of study higher priorities than this one; and Soviet advanced psychology research is little-known if not outright classified.

While there appears to exist cultural variation of application and intensity of groupthink, the phenomenon does not appear to be confined to Americans. Digwuren 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

==criticism== Does anyone else think like me that "groupthink" is just a neat journalistic term for something that everyone knew existed, for multiple reasons, an dwhich is an outgrowth of conformism in general, and that Janis didn't invent anything? I don't think this article needs to existJohncmullen1960 04:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Regardless of who coined the term, it's a useful construct that psychologists and sociologists use to explain behavior. That you think it should or should not exist, I'm sorry to inform you, is irrelevant. I'll be removing your post in a few days, but I'll give you time to further explain your point.Briholt 06:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia itself is a good example of international groupthink. It is by no means a phenomenon restricted to a single culture. Nazlfrag 05:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust, Bigfoot, Moon landing, "Conspiracy theory" vs "News" vs "Hoax"

Do you believe Bigfoot exists? Some people do. Do they believe in conspiracy theories? Hoaxes? There *IS* evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot, but it is mostly low-quality evidence, so most people discard the evidence, and therefore do not have the belief. So what happens if you turn on the news and there is a story that Bigfoot has been found. If you now believe it, aren't you engaged in Groupthink? Isn't the same mechanism in place -- there is evidence to support it, but now you believe it, *because* you see that other people do -- now YOU would be weird if you did NOT believe it! You don't want to be weird, you want to fit in, "people who fit in believe what they hear on the news" -- so you believe.

If you were born after the moon landings, you believe because lots of other people -- who actually did NOT have the experience -- believe it happened. Same exact mechanism with the Holocaust. Nessie. Did Jesus exist or not?

Why do some people think the 9/11 attacks on the US were a conspiracy? They think YOU are engaged in Groupthink and just believing everything you see on TV, and they know the real truth. Which is it? You ARE in fact engaged in Groupthink if you do NOT think it was a conspiracy!

Groupthink is used pejoratively, yet everyone does it all the time. This should be clarified in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by USAjp22 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

NOT ALLOWED

Groupthink is different from making rational judgments and decisions based on third-party evidence. In your last example, the 9/11 one, you say conspiracy theorists accuse their detractors of groupthink for "believing everything you see on TV". Accepting statements from reliable news outlets - especially over a period of time during which false stories will generally be debunked by competitors - is not groupthink, it's simply how we get news. Yes, there might be a conspiracy that fools all the news media, but it's unlikely, and there's no guarantees of anything - we have to go with the best evidence we have available. IMO it's rational enough to be AWARE that some people believe there's been a cover up, but, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the official sequence of events is most likely true. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "NOT ALLOWED" is not mine, btw. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Change this?

"A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group"

I'm pretty clueless on this actually, but the above statement taken from the article, didn't ring well in my ears. Is it possible to go even deeper as to why some starts to groupthink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.249.29 (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Challenger Disaster

The section on the Challenger disaster was recently removed along with some other examples. I can't speak for the others but Challenger is frequently cited as a classic example of groupthink. It is used as a case study in college management courses. I have nothing to reference to support this (it is out there somewhere) but I feel it is relevant info for this topic.Jester5x5 (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That certainly seems plausable. Once a reference is found it won't be hard to reinsert the relevent section. Jefffire (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[1] The removal of all the Challenger material may have been a little hasty; if there are references that are pertinent to Groupthink, it would be fine. Some of the writing varies in style and evenness; it was the poor quality of the writing in the other (removed) material which lead to the stubbing of that section. --NewbyG (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Columbia disaster is a better example, as detailed in James Surowiecki's book. See the WP entry for the disaster, which also links to an entry for Linda Ham. Martindo (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This film discusses the Challenger disaster as an example and may be a possible citation: http://groupthinkfilm.com/ Would it be appropriate to link to that site as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertywiki77 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of using Cuban Missile Crisis or JFK's management style as an example.

History is showing us that JFK was in way over his head when it came to leading the nation during the height of the Cold War. The Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis and the Berlin Wall all came about under his administration. It stuns me how Americans say Kennedy was such a great leader during the Cuban Missile Crisis when his administration completely screwed up the Bay of Pigs operation due to a lack of leadership by always trying to maintain deniability up the chain of command. If the Bay of Pigs was successful, Kennedy and his gung-ho, naive and ridiculous brother Bobby would have taken credit for it though.

He handled the Cuban Missile Crisis the way he commanded his PT boat. His incompetence enabled his PT boat to first lose track of the PT patrol he was with that had radar and then once stranded his PT boat got run over, not shot at, by a Japanese destroyer. 2 of his crew were killed. If Kennedy had never tried to "prove how tough" he was, the Bay of Pigs never would have happened and Cuba would not have run to the Soviets for fear of a follow-up full-scale US invasion. Cuba became Communist more because of Kennedy than Castro.

Find another example from history other than Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Anyways what sources do you have to substantiate what happened in the inner halls of Kennedy's administration. I have heard a tape many times of Kennedy discussing his options with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of his cabinet and inner circle and he seemed open to direct persuasion to me from what I heard. Also he has reported to say many times that he would never listen to the Joint Chiefs ever again because they could manipulate him, i.e. use Groupthink on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkelly37 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Jed McKenna's "quote"

Interesting as it might be, where do those John McKenna's words come from? I could only find the quote here: [[2]]; and about John McKenna, a Google search [3] shows some books by someone with that name that might contain the words. I'm not removing the quote myself, but it would be nice if someone can provide a reference, and maybe introduce and reformat the quote to get a more uniform article. Otherwise I think it should be removed.

BTW neither user Boombaard who contributed the quote, nor Brainstewn who "fixed" the page later, are Wikipedia's users anymore. --89.129.147.219 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Jed McKenna quote. McKenna is a self-appointed spiritual guru. He has no expertise on the subject of groupthink. Here's the quote in case anyone has need of it:

We're all afloat in a boundless sea, and the way we cope is by massing together in groups and pretending in unison that the situation is other than it is. We reinforce the illusion for each other. That's what a society really is, a little band of humanity huddled together against the specter of a pitch black sea. Everyone is treading water to keep their heads above the surface even though they have no reason to believe that the life they're preserving is better than the alternative they're avoiding. It's just that one is known and one is not. Fear of the unknown is what keeps everyone busily treading water. All fear is fear of the unknown. If someone in such a group of water-treaders betrays the group lie by speaking the truth of their situation, that person is called a heretic, and society reserves its most awful punishments for heretics. If someone decides to stop struggling and just sink or float away, every possible effort is made to stop him, not for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of the group. To deny at all costs the truth of the situation.

Paralipsis (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Witnessing to Multiple Experiences

"Group think has also been tested to incorporate the inclusion of members witnessing to multiple experiences, as such mutual creation and psychic potential has been proven. The original inclusion of this experiment would be a monkey reaching for a piece of fruit that was technically non-existant. The human brain has been proven to be able to operate such calculations as necessary to be able to use unified field as a void energy field: folding space to create light, and folding light to replicate matter."

What in the world is this section trying to talk about? At the very best, it reads as unclear, at worst, completely bizarre. A citation would be handy too in at least getting more context if not verification.DanOrc451 (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Anonymous noteworthy?

I think that the Anon hive mind would be a good example of groupthink, and might help explain things for us mortals. Considering that the *chans are not all that well known, it might be a good idea to provide some examples of the Anon hive mind at work. Project Chanology might be a good example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.97.186 (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pejorative?

"The term is frequently used pejoratively," ; there is another way? Anarchangel (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)