Everybody in a democracy, oligarchy, monarchy or even a theocracy is vulnerable to groupthink. This includes the politically savvy and the religiously well-versed. To deny vulnerability is to demonstrate vulnerability. Indeed, to anyone claiming there was once a time of perfection – a golden age – to which we should aspire, then it may need pointing out that the mere fact that imperfections are present today would suggest vulnerabilities to groupthink in the past. To claim infallibility of a past or present system of government is demonstrably delusional or dishonest. To claim infallibility of a future system opens the way for groupthink dangers.
Groupthink symptoms include:
1. The unquestioning belief in the morality of a cause leading to the disregard of the consequences of actions;
2. The direct pressure of conformity where questioning is seen as disloyal or heretical to the group;
3. Self-censorship which, if not discouraged, will suppress ideas that might be seen to deviate from a perceived group consensus;
4. The illusion of unanimity where silence is interpreted as consent;
5. The existence of mind guards who suppress dissenting and inconvenient information;
6. The stereotyping of opponents as evil or stupid will misinform and misdirect decision-making;
7. The illusion of invulnerability that fosters misplaced optimism and risk taking;
8. The collective rationalisation in which group members ignore warnings of failure.
Imagine two populations with similar problems and opportunities. One population has a government that takes measures to avoid groupthink, the other does not. Which government would you expect to be best informed to make better judgments? Now consider any government, non-state actor or individual of your choice and consider how effective they are at avoiding the pitfalls of groupthink.
Those who claim to know the path to a better society, whilst stifling debate, rejecting re-evaluations, discouraging inquiry and obstructing learning, are deceiving themselves, and so too are those who only tolerate fashionable arguments.
Further reading: Janis, Irving L. Victims of Groupthink, New York: Houghton Mifflin (1972); and Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, New York: Houghton Mifflin (1982).
Post a Comment