I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia itself). I saw it just now in the discussion of an expulsion from this list. When it was first brought up for comment, there was a "me-too" chorus of agreement with the ban. Then, a day later, I posted my dissenting commentary (which I actually wrote yesterday, but failed to successfully post due to a misconfigured mail program... getting outbound mail sent while on vacation and using various different access providers is a pain with all the security moves and port blocking tossing up hoops to be navigated), and suddenly there were several other dissenting views following in close succession.
One can make all sorts of hypotheses to try to explain such things; perhaps people are timid about expressing their opinion unless somebody else has already broken the ice in their direction; perhaps people of firm convictions prefer to be quiet about them unless they're sure they have other supporters around so they won't be left to twist in the wind alone; perhaps people without convictions of their own are eager to find bandwagons to jump on so they'll take up a view that just happens to agree with whoever else posted last. Whichever it may be (or a combination of these and other factors), it doesn't seem like the healthiest thing for honest discussion of views (even if sometimes the outcome might wind up agreeing with my own view).
I know that an atmosphere (which several prominent people seem to be promoting) where people are in fear of being blocked or banned for their expression of views is one highly conducive to such groupthink, where people will either adopt (or pretend to adopt) whatever they see as the dominant view, or else shut up and decline to state a view at all. Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 21/11/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia itself). I saw it just now in the discussion of an expulsion from this list. When it was first brought up for comment, there was a "me-too" chorus of agreement with the ban. Then, a day later, I posted my dissenting commentary (which I actually wrote yesterday, but failed to successfully post due to a misconfigured mail program... getting outbound mail sent while on vacation and using various different access providers is a pain with all the security moves and port blocking tossing up hoops to be navigated), and suddenly there were several other dissenting views following in close succession.
Surely that's *why* you posted your views, in order to try and convince people to agree with you. That's how discussions work - if someone makes a good point, people tend to agree with it.
On 22/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/11/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia itself). I saw it just now in the discussion of an expulsion from this list. When it was first brought up for comment, there was a "me-too" chorus of agreement with the ban. Then, a day later, I posted my dissenting commentary (which I actually wrote yesterday, but failed to successfully post due to a misconfigured mail program... getting outbound mail sent while on vacation and using various different access providers is a pain with all the security moves and port blocking tossing up hoops to be navigated), and suddenly there were several other dissenting views following in close succession.
Surely that's *why* you posted your views, in order to try and convince people to agree with you. That's how discussions work - if someone makes a good point, people tend to agree with it.
If you assume that everyone is rational only based on the points brought up so far and not their individual thoughts on the issue as a whole then it may work that way. But it is still groupthink to go along with the current trend in a conversation just because, highlighted by sudden switches to other good points that you did not see at first because you were too busy agreeing with what was said.
Peter
If you assume that everyone is rational only based on the points brought up so far and not their individual thoughts on the issue as a whole then it may work that way. But it is still groupthink to go along with the current trend in a conversation just because, highlighted by sudden switches to other good points that you did not see at first because you were too busy agreeing with what was said.
If people just agree with whatever the most recent person to speak up says, then that could be considered groupthink, but accepting that someone has noticed something you didn't and thus your previous opinion was incorrect is not groupthink, it's maturity.
On 22/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If you assume that everyone is rational only based on the points brought up so far and not their individual thoughts on the issue as a whole then it may work that way. But it is still groupthink to go along with the current trend in a conversation just because, highlighted by sudden switches to other good points that you did not see at first because you were too busy agreeing with what was said.
If people just agree with whatever the most recent person to speak up says, then that could be considered groupthink, but accepting that someone has noticed something you didn't and thus your previous opinion was incorrect is not groupthink, it's maturity.
I agree with that. Conversations however are more vulnerable to groupthink if people don't attempt to investigate evidence, and then combine that with their own personal experience before contributing to a discussion.
Peter
I agree with that. Conversations however are more vulnerable to groupthink if people don't attempt to investigate evidence, and then combine that with their own personal experience before contributing to a discussion.
Of course. That's pretty much the definition of groupthink - believing something because that's what other people believe, rather than by considering the evidence and reaching your own conclusion.
On 11/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Of course. That's pretty much the definition of groupthink - believing something because that's what other people believe, rather than by considering the evidence and reaching your own conclusion.
Alternate definition, when the rest of the group adopts a position on an issue contrary to your own. If they adopt your position, then it's "consensus".
Quoting "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name:
I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia itself). I saw it just now in the discussion of an expulsion from this list. When it was first brought up for comment, there was a "me-too" chorus of agreement with the ban. Then, a day later, I posted my dissenting commentary (which I actually wrote yesterday, but failed to successfully post due to a misconfigured mail program... getting outbound mail sent while on vacation and using various different access providers is a pain with all the security moves and port blocking tossing up hoops to be navigated), and suddenly there were several other dissenting views following in close succession.
One can make all sorts of hypotheses to try to explain such things; perhaps people are timid about expressing their opinion unless somebody else has already broken the ice in their direction; perhaps people of firm convictions prefer to be quiet about them unless they're sure they have other supporters around so they won't be left to twist in the wind alone; perhaps people without convictions of their own are eager to find bandwagons to jump on so they'll take up a view that just happens to agree with whoever else posted last. Whichever it may be (or a combination of these and other factors), it doesn't seem like the healthiest thing for honest discussion of views (even if sometimes the outcome might wind up agreeing with my own view).
At least in my case I wasn't paying that much attention to the matter. Once I saw your email I went back and read the exchanges (which I previously had only skimmed). I don't know if that is groupthink per se. It doesn't require a group think problem for people to develop opinions on a matter based on a pointer or new set of evidence.
I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia itself). I saw it just now in the discussion of an expulsion from this list. When it was first brought up for comment, there was a "me-too" chorus of agreement with the ban. Then, a day later, I posted my dissenting commentary (which I actually wrote yesterday, but failed to successfully post due to a misconfigured mail program... getting outbound mail sent while on vacation and using various different access providers is a pain with all the security moves and port blocking tossing up hoops to be navigated), and suddenly there were several other dissenting views following in close succession.
Since I've never been accused of being timid about my opinions, I'll chalk it up to the fact that, as the Canadian in the office this week here in Boston, I've been getting all kinds of lovely overtime hours bestowed on me as people say, 'Hey, do you think you could cover....'. I didn't have time to actually articulate it and actually type it, but it had occurred to me.
Frankly, I think in any group of a few thousand people, we get about the normal amount of acquiescence and people who say 'me too' simply because sometimes, someone else has just expressed things they'd sort of thought. Would you rather have said it and had no one say, 'That's been bothering me, too?' and have no idea that other people were in agreement? (that sounds snarkier than intended, but I really mean it; it's a high volume list, some people might prefer that. But I'd rather have the volume and see when people want to chime in, even if it's just to say, 'Hey, he's right.'
Thes.
On Nov 21, 2007 12:47 PM, thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote: <snip>
Would you rather have said it and had no one say, 'That's been bothering me, too?' and have no idea that other people were in agreement? (that sounds snarkier than intended, but I really mean it; it's a high volume list, some people might prefer that. But I'd rather have the volume and see when people want to chime in, even if it's just to say, 'Hey, he's right.'
I totally agree.
(Sorry, couldn't resist. No cookie for me...)
- PeruvianLlama
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:42:56 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list
This is funny. The number and length of the arguments indicates that if we were to try to groupthink a pissup in a brewery we'd probably never actually decide whether we wanted to start drinking yet or not.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/22/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia
People in general are lazy. Don't read too much into it.
Steve