Groupthink

{{sociology}}{{cquote|A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.|||Agent K, ''Men in Black''}}

'''Groupthink''' (or '''communal reinforcement''') happens when a desire for conformity within a group transcends [[rational]] thought, issues of [[Morality|right and wrong]], or even personal [[opinion]]. When this happens, individuals in a group fail to express their doubts as commonly about the group's dynamic, direction, or decisions because of a desire to maintain (pseudo-)consensus or conformity. Thus even though the group may be on a headlong rush to error or disaster, no-one speaks up because they don't want to rock the boat.  

Groupthink can affect communities of any size from [[Cults|small]] [[collective|groups]]<ref group=note>[[RationalWiki]], we're looking at you.</ref> to whole [[nation]]s.

The term was coined by {{wpl|William H. Whyte}} of ''Fortune Magazine'' in 1952<ref>{{cite news
| last1                 = Whyte
| first1                = William H.
| title                 = Groupthink
| work                  = Fortune
| publication-date      = March 1952
| page                  = 114–117, 142, 146
| quote                 = 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.}}</ref> and popularized by social [[psychologist]] {{wpl|Irving Janis}} in 1972.<ref>[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=groupthink%2Cgroup-think&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cgroupthink%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cgroup%20-%20think%3B%2Cc0 Growth in use of the term]</ref> 

==Definition==
Psychologist Janis Irving described eight symptoms of groupthink:<ref name=Janis/>{{rp|174-5}}
#Overestimation of the invulnerability of the group, leading to extreme optimism and risk taking 
#Overestimation of the group's morality 
#Collective rationalization in order to discount contrary information or warnings
#Oversimplified views of enemies as stupid and weak, and therefore of no threat, or as evil, and therefore not worth negotiating with
#Members engage in self-censorship of their doubts with the group consensus
#Overestimation of the unanimity of agreement over the decisions made
#Attempts to pressure members who disagree with the consensus 
#The existence of individuals who protect the group from information that might disturb group cohesion
Groups are most vulnerable to the results of groupthink when their members come from similar backgrounds, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision-making.<ref name=Janis>{{Cite book |last=Janis |first=Irving L. |title=Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes |date=1982 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |isbn=978-0-395-31704-4 |edition=1st |location=Boston}}</ref>{{rp|177}} These factors get turbo-charged when group members are in states of high stress and they can't find a better solution than one favored by a leader.<ref name=Janis/>{{rp|254}}  Alternatively, in the case of [[Cult#Warning signs of a potentially destructive cult|destructive cults]], a clear rule may exist: "[[Argument from authority|Accept what the cult leader or the leader's representatives tell us]] without question - [[Argumentum ad baculum|otherwise face the consequences]]."{{efn|An example from the
Christ's Commission Fellowship:<ref>{{cite web
 |url= https://www.ccf.org.ph/who-we-are/
 |title= Who We Are
 |year= 2020
 |website= Christ's Commission Fellowship
 |publisher= Christ's Commission Fellowship
 |access-date= 8 December 2020
 }}</ref>
{{quotebox|Our Core values[:]  [...] No critical spirit or participation in gossip [...] Obey God's Word and Authorities [...] Submission to God-given authorities with respect and a positive attitude [...] Display of consistent humility; willing acceptance of criticism, correction, and suggestions [...]}}
}}<ref>{{cite book
 | last1 = Walker
 | first1 = Jeff
 | orig-year = 1999
 | chapter = Entrails: The Anatomy of the Cult
 | title = The Ayn Rand Cult
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=VK0Inb75q_YC
 | location = Chicago
 | publisher = Open Court
 | publication-date = 2012
 | page = 50
 | isbn = 9780812698190
 | access-date = 8 December 2020
 | quote = A rational person may easily become involved in a cult, if only because a cult is typically a far different entity than it appears on the surface. As one's involvement increases, it is easy to slip into an authoritarian relationship without realizing it.}}</ref>

Groupthink relates in some ways to the older concept of [[crowd psychology]], although "groupthink" refers not to the spontaneous actions of crowds but to the activities of groups with a shared interest or objective (such as [[Large group awareness training|LGAT]]s<ref>{{cite book
 | last1 = Dalmau
 | first1 = Tim
 | last2 = Neville
 | first2 = Bernie
 | orig-year = 2004
 | title = Olympus Inc: Intervening for Cultural Change in Organizations
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bBVWDwAAQBAJ
 | location = Abingdon
 | publisher = Routledge
 | publication-date = 2018
 | isbn = 9780429916748
 | access-date = 8 December 2020
 | quote = The consultants can come in many forms and guises: they can range over the full gamut, from rational, systematic, advice-givers to skills providers, systems analysts and strategic problem-solvers, to those with a more facilitative, value-based, and relational focus, and finally, to those who call on large group awareness for their magic. [...] Those who are enmeshed in the situation are likely to be caught up in the 'group-think', taken over by something 'bigger than themselves', and unable to see clearly or act rationally. The magical structure acts out of impulse and emotion. Reasons and justifications are constructed later [...].}}</ref>), including many small groups, and groups of people who may be physically distanced from each other (for example, people in an [[Internet]] community). The similarity of the term to "[[doublethink]]" may suggest that [[Orwell]]'s [[1984| ''Nineteen Eighty Four'']] inspired the naming convention.

"Groupthink" is why everyone in that online forum/[[wiki]] you just joined not only doesn't go for your perspicacious and [[radical]] ideas, they actually seem ''uninterested''. [[Sheeple]]!

==Role of the iconoclast==
{{cquote|For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the God; and the state is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has given the state and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you.|||[[Socrates]]}}

A community's "drift" can seem to be automatic. This drift is frequently kept in check by an [[iconoclast]] who may seek to redefine that which has come to be defined precisely because of the group's drift. This serves to shock the group out of the automatic "go with the flow" and the more insidious "go along to get along" attitudes which can eventually get in the way of the group's stated goals.  

Sometimes iconoclasts, other than actually supporting or protesting something which is wrong and/or incorrect, are just [[bigot]]ed jerks.<ref>Like [http://www.realcourage.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/rhode-island-hate-attack.jpg so]…</ref>

A more proper term for someone who challenges ideas for actual philosophical purposes is a "social gadfly", which is how Socrates referred to himself during his trial for "corrupting the youth" and "impiety."<ref>[http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html ''Apology'' by Plato], MIT</ref>

==Epistemic closure==
Julian Sanchez of the [[Cato Institute]] adapted the term "epistemic closure," originally {{wpl|Epistemic closure|an unrelated philosophical term|,}} to describe what he saw as the behavior of [[conservatism#United States|US conservatism]]. In a blog post that kicked off the "epistemic closure" debate of 2010, which drew in [[Andrew Sullivan]], [[Jonah Goldberg]], [[David Frum]], [[Ross Douthat]], Bruce Bartlett, and Jonathan Chait, Sanchez wrote:<ref>[https://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/03/26/frum-cocktail-parties-and-the-threat-of-doubt Frum, Cocktail Parties, and the Threat of Doubt] (March 26th, 2010).</ref>

{{cquote|Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, [[Fox News]]. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the [[liberal media]], and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they [[circular argument|disagree with the conservative media]]!) This epistemic closure...}}

His usage is close to "false consensus" or "groupthink."
==See also==
*[[Crowd psychology]]
*[[Rationalization]]
*[[Communitarianism]]
*[[Concern troll]]
*[[New Labour]]
*[[Star Wars]] - both real ''and'' fictional!
*[[List of cognitive biases]]

==External links==
*[http://psychology.about.com/od/gindex/g/groupthink.htm What Is Groupthink?]
*[http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0002870/Nantais_Joel_D_200912_MA.pdf Iraq War groupthink]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080720062351/http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/groupthink.cfm Challenger disaster groupthink]
*The epistemic closure debate: [http://www.slate.com/id/2252685/ William Saletan], [http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-on-that-closed-loop.html Jonathan Bernstein] and [http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1660/data-point-epistemic-closure Bruce Bartlett]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Categories: Sociology, Psychology