“They may assert that the university must agree with everything the particular group says.“
When I first heard of Janis’ ideas about ‘groupthink’ I thought it must be a rare phenomenon, found in defined contexts and then only in certain circumstances.
Now I think that it is so prevalent that it is rare to find a public perspective from any organisation that does not genuflect at the altar of whatever narrative is proselytised by the in-group.
There are three reasonable conclusions from this;
1 You (and me, hopefully) are mavericks, out of step with current societal values:
2 Society has changed fundamentally, while we have remained reasonably consistent:
3 Some from column A and some from column B
I salute your bravery in accepting plurality in discourse and not using your professional role as a platform for your personal beliefs. Alas, I think your’s is a minority perspective, more’s the pity.
The level of groupthink seems to depend upon the atmosphere. Have you ever read Timur Kuran’s book, Public Lies, Private Truths, on preference falsification? The more blowback you face for public expressions of your views, the more you fall in with the publicly acceptable views, to keep your own reputation and position. I cannot tell you the number of times I say something publicly, and many people privately message me to say they agree, or support me, but if they were asked to publicly do so, they would be much more reluctant. The cynic in me wonders how many might publicly disavow me, to avoid trouble.
I have gotten in trouble from a very young age for asking uncomfortable questions. I think it’s too late for this leopard to change her spots. I’m glad to have the company of other leopards such as yourself.
I supported the “no” campaign at polling booths. On the way in, virtually nobody would even give me eye contact.
But on the way out, multiple people whispered in my ear “I voted no!” as if they were admitting to murdering a coach load of nuns. But only after they had voted.
It was almost as if they could have been cancelled for a thought crime if they had even appeared to associate with the “no” campaign before they voted! And they could only admit to voting no *sotto voce*.
And the majority of Australians voted “no”! What does that tell us about where we are as a society? A minority ~40% are holding the majority in fear of expressing what most people believe.
That was the most extraordinary exercise in preference falsification I had ever seen in real time. And yes, it was treated as a thought crime, to even suggest that one should vote No.
The thing is, when a preference “cascade” occurs - everyone admits that they were expressing views they didn’t really believe - Kuran argues that it is very destabilising to society and can even be dangerous - because there’s a sudden “flip”.
I've thought about the "why" of groupthink most of my life. Being able to pressure members of a group into conformity is often for survival, but there also needs to be those who will stand outside the group and make waves when a cliff waits at the end of the path. As society becomes more complicated, the need becomes stronger. I'm not good at many things but being willing to raise questions when the entire group is heading a bad way is one thing I am good at doing. It helps that I'm not worried about being liked or excluded. I'm not a loner and I like to get along but it doesn't drive my choices. Then there's those who are normally willing to speak up except when fearing violent retaliation or loss of income with a family to feed. I consider you and probably most of your readers (including me!) in that regard hobbits, and we're badly needed right now.
“They may assert that the university must agree with everything the particular group says.“
When I first heard of Janis’ ideas about ‘groupthink’ I thought it must be a rare phenomenon, found in defined contexts and then only in certain circumstances.
Now I think that it is so prevalent that it is rare to find a public perspective from any organisation that does not genuflect at the altar of whatever narrative is proselytised by the in-group.
There are three reasonable conclusions from this;
1 You (and me, hopefully) are mavericks, out of step with current societal values:
2 Society has changed fundamentally, while we have remained reasonably consistent:
3 Some from column A and some from column B
I salute your bravery in accepting plurality in discourse and not using your professional role as a platform for your personal beliefs. Alas, I think your’s is a minority perspective, more’s the pity.
The level of groupthink seems to depend upon the atmosphere. Have you ever read Timur Kuran’s book, Public Lies, Private Truths, on preference falsification? The more blowback you face for public expressions of your views, the more you fall in with the publicly acceptable views, to keep your own reputation and position. I cannot tell you the number of times I say something publicly, and many people privately message me to say they agree, or support me, but if they were asked to publicly do so, they would be much more reluctant. The cynic in me wonders how many might publicly disavow me, to avoid trouble.
I have gotten in trouble from a very young age for asking uncomfortable questions. I think it’s too late for this leopard to change her spots. I’m glad to have the company of other leopards such as yourself.
I supported the “no” campaign at polling booths. On the way in, virtually nobody would even give me eye contact.
But on the way out, multiple people whispered in my ear “I voted no!” as if they were admitting to murdering a coach load of nuns. But only after they had voted.
It was almost as if they could have been cancelled for a thought crime if they had even appeared to associate with the “no” campaign before they voted! And they could only admit to voting no *sotto voce*.
And the majority of Australians voted “no”! What does that tell us about where we are as a society? A minority ~40% are holding the majority in fear of expressing what most people believe.
Thanks for the tip, I will look it up!
That was the most extraordinary exercise in preference falsification I had ever seen in real time. And yes, it was treated as a thought crime, to even suggest that one should vote No.
The thing is, when a preference “cascade” occurs - everyone admits that they were expressing views they didn’t really believe - Kuran argues that it is very destabilising to society and can even be dangerous - because there’s a sudden “flip”.
I've thought about the "why" of groupthink most of my life. Being able to pressure members of a group into conformity is often for survival, but there also needs to be those who will stand outside the group and make waves when a cliff waits at the end of the path. As society becomes more complicated, the need becomes stronger. I'm not good at many things but being willing to raise questions when the entire group is heading a bad way is one thing I am good at doing. It helps that I'm not worried about being liked or excluded. I'm not a loner and I like to get along but it doesn't drive my choices. Then there's those who are normally willing to speak up except when fearing violent retaliation or loss of income with a family to feed. I consider you and probably most of your readers (including me!) in that regard hobbits, and we're badly needed right now.