When is it Groupthink?

[Ian]

Groupthink is a word which is often poorly used. It's intent was originally different from mere mob mentality or political manipulation which some people now consider it as, but more the sort of psychology you find in terror cells and with conspiracy nuts and in the Manson family and Cults and the like. It's the idea that they create through constant reinforcement of belief, a subset of consensual reality which has radically branched off from the larger consensual reality.

Sort of like members of an organized religion, then. Or Democrats.

Throughout history, right-wing organizations have been more likely to coalesce around a common purpose, and are more willing to accept an authority figure from their ranks. Left-wing groups are more likely to descend into infighting and splinter-groups, or not coalesce at all. Regardless of the political details of the time or place, this is the way it tends to work out, with pros and cons on either side. It's an axiom of the liberal and conservative mindsets.

So... shove it, Republican.

[Warren Dew]

Throughout history, right-wing organizations have been more likely to coalesce around a common purpose, and are more willing to accept an authority figure from their ranks. Left-wing groups are more likely to descend into infighting and splinter-groups, or not coalesce at all.

Indeed. It's so fortunate that Communism, for example, never coalesced around authority figures, and no one knows the names of would be left wing authoritarians like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who are mere footnotes in history.

Oh wait, no - history proves that you're egregiously wrong. Left wing groups almost always tend towards deifying their leaders. The way Democrats worship Obama is a good example.

So... shove it, Republican.

Wrong again, as usual. I'm a registered independent.

[Audley Strange]

Sort of like members of an organized religion, then. Or Democrats.

No, exactly not that. Groupthink does not apply to traditional large social cultural or political groups. I get you're just taking a pop at simps but it is worth pointing out that it was originally derived as being different from social conformity.

Groupthink is probably best described as a shared psychosis.

I might be wrong about this but I'm sure the term came up after studies into the phenomena pertaining to the behaviours of Manson Family, the murders at Mai Lai and the Jonestown Massacre.

[Hermit]

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. It is the mode of thinking that happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. As a social science model, groupthink has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, social psychology, management, organizational theory, and information technology.

The majority of the initial research on groupthink was performed by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.In an influential 1972 book, his original definition of the term was "A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."

[Ian]

Throughout history, right-wing organizations have been more likely to coalesce around a common purpose, and are more willing to accept an authority figure from their ranks. Left-wing groups are more likely to descend into infighting and splinter-groups, or not coalesce at all.

Indeed. It's so fortunate that Communism, for example, never coalesced around authority figures, and no one knows the names of would be left wing authoritarians like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who are mere footnotes in history.

Oh wait, no - history proves that you're egregiously wrong. Left wing groups almost always tend towards deifying their leaders. The way Democrats worship Obama is a good example.

I wasn't talking about how one side deifies leaders more than another; good examples can be shown on both sides. I meant that groups on the left are more likely to challenge each other rather than merge under a common tent. Consider Trotsky or Tito. Explain why China and the USSR went from being allies to targeting each other with missiles, despite being leftist nations with common adversaries. Review the Spanish civil war. Too many examples to list.

Seriously, look through history! This is a near-constant, at least over the last 150 years since modern leftist thought emerged. It's why reading your post set off an alarm bell in my head. You're just plain wrong. Leftists are the ones who splinter, and I meant that as a criticism of Democrats as much as any other left-of-center group in history. Republicans are very good at remaining cohesive, much better than Democrats; surely nobody who's reviewed the GOP opposition to Obama over the last three years could claim otherwise. For all the talk about the tea party emerging as a faction within the GOP, there's no chance that they'll run their own candidate up against the President on a third party ticket.

If you honestly think Democrats worship Obama, then you're not listening to your own rants about how much Ron Paul on the ticket would suck away the youth vote from Obama. I think there's some truth to that. And this proves that you do understand the idea that liberals might vote elsewhere because of certain issues. Some of Bill Maher's thoughts on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax15XRL1URQ Democrats don't worship Obama ffs - that's just typical right-wing paranoia. Meanwhile, is there any chance that tea party types won't hold their noses and vote for Mitt "I'm severely conservative - no, really!" Romney? Of course they will. They'll coalesce around him with the common goal of defeating Obama.

Another recent example: what were all those small-government tea party types doing ten years ago when W. Bush sent the deficit skyrocketing? They were toeing the party line and supporting their leader, not to mention helping him get re-elected without any challenge. And why was he the leader in the first place? Ask Al Gore what he thinks of Ralph Nader's campaign.

So... shove it, Republican.

Wrong again, as usual. I'm a registered independent.

I know that. But if it quacks like a duck, you call it a duck.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Outsider position is the most fun in a group, I believe. "Devil's advocate" work is more stimulating to me.

[Audley Strange]

The Outsider position is the most fun in a group, I believe. "Devil's advocate" work is more stimulating to me.

Careful though G, the traditionally a societal outsider was synonymous with madmen and shaman which is what leads to wise men and experts and gurus and crazy personality cults.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Outsider position is the most fun in a group, I believe. "Devil's advocate" work is more stimulating to me.

Careful though G, the traditionally a societal outsider was synonymous with madmen and shaman which is what leads to wise men and experts and gurus and crazy personality cults.

As I mentioned earlier, it's my job to be the Outsider, to have a solo view of the matter untainted by groupthink. I do this very well according to my "boss", and nobody cares if I'm mad or not, they're constantly pissed off at me anyway.

[Hermit]

The Outsider position is the most fun in a group, I believe. "Devil's advocate" work is more stimulating to me.

Careful though G, the traditionally a societal outsider was synonymous with madmen and shaman which is what leads to wise men and experts and gurus and crazy personality cults.

Devil's advocates are not outsiders. They are people tasked to provide an alternative view. This is how the label came about.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Outsider position is the most fun in a group, I believe. "Devil's advocate" work is more stimulating to me.

Careful though G, the traditionally a societal outsider was synonymous with madmen and shaman which is what leads to wise men and experts and gurus and crazy personality cults.

Devil's advocates are not outsiders. They are people tasked to provide an alternative view. This is how the label came about.

I didn't conflate the two, I think.

[Hermit]

The Outsider position is the most fun in a group, I believe. "Devil's advocate" work is more stimulating to me.

Careful though G, the traditionally a societal outsider was synonymous with madmen and shaman which is what leads to wise men and experts and gurus and crazy personality cults.

Devil's advocates are not outsiders. They are people tasked to provide an alternative view. This is how the label came about.

I didn't conflate the two, I think.

I don't think so either. The reply was to Audley Strange.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Just making my position clearer-ish-ly.

[Warren Dew]

If you honestly think Democrats worship Obama, then you're not listening to your own rants about how much Ron Paul on the ticket would suck away the youth vote from Obama. I think there's some truth to that.

The youth that would support Ron Paul are not Democrats. They are new, uncommitted voters that are realizing just how terrible Obama's policies are for them. The Obama groupies from four years ago - a long time in terms of the youth vote - will continue to vote for him; the difference is that they are no longer representative of the youth vote this time around.

Meanwhile, is there any chance that tea party types won't hold their noses and vote for Mitt "I'm severely conservative - no, really!" Romney? Of course they will. They'll coalesce around him with the common goal of defeating Obama.

And Obama voters who talk about civil liberties are going to abandon him in droves for Gary Johnson? Fat chance.

[Audley Strange]

The Outsider position is the most fun in a group, I believe. "Devil's advocate" work is more stimulating to me.

Careful though G, the traditionally a societal outsider was synonymous with madmen and shaman which is what leads to wise men and experts and gurus and crazy personality cults.

Devil's advocates are not outsiders. They are people tasked to provide an alternative view. This is how the label came about.

I didn't conflate the two, I think.

I don't think so either. The reply was to Audley Strange.

No I didn't conflate them either. You did that all on your own. I was speaking of the role of the outsider within a society, which was traditionally someone who did act in an "oppositional" to the established power.Traditionally these were seen as fools or holy men. Many cults grew up around such.

[Hermit]

I was speaking of the role of the outsider within a society, which was traditionally someone who did act in an "oppositional" to the established power.Traditionally these were seen as fools or holy men. Many cults grew up around such.

Definition of DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
1: a Roman Catholic official whose duty is to examine critically the evidence on which a demand for beatification or canonization rests
2: a person who champions the less accepted cause for the sake of argument

Feel free to add your private definition to the dictionary, and good luck with it.