Yeah, it does. Either 1) the system's completely flawed and corrupt, or 2) what you've been told about "these people" is incorrect, designed to discredit them using theories contrived to get tenure for social scientists, and designed to exploit the propaganda outlet of the popular media.
It shouldn't boggle the mind -- "these people" are the best, brightest, and most successful that this country has to offer, unlike MOST of their detractors. Our society awards status and power on the basis of success and merit, for the most part, and that's who "these people" are in the first place.
I actually like GroupThink as an idea, and I've seen it applied successfully to many different historical scenaria, ex post. But I've also seen it misused quite a bit. It's very easy to make the facts fit the theory in retrospect.
As a scientist who's studied and written about GroupThink and crisis decision-making, do I think GroupThink applies? Maybe on the part of the Iraqi leadership, with an added touch of sadism. To the group in Washington? Nope -- but again, it spins well.
Independent critics of the world, unite! Free thinkers, join with your brothers! Gee, it sure is easier to come up with this conspiracy/flawed system stuff when you let some political hacks do it for you.
Yeah, it does. Either 1) the system's completely flawed and corrupt, or 2) what you've been told about "these people" is incorrect, designed to discredit them using theories contrived to get tenure for social scientists, and designed to exploit the propaganda outlet of the popular media.
It shouldn't boggle the mind -- "these people" are the best, brightest, and most successful that this country has to offer, unlike MOST of their detractors. Our society awards status and power on the basis of success and merit, for the most part, and that's who "these people" are in the first place.
I actually like GroupThink as an idea, and I've seen it applied successfully to many different historical scenaria, ex post. But I've also seen it misused quite a bit. It's very easy to make the facts fit the theory in retrospect.
As a scientist who's studied and written about GroupThink and crisis decision-making, do I think GroupThink applies? Maybe on the part of the Iraqi leadership, with an added touch of sadism. To the group in Washington? Nope -- but again, it spins well.
Independent critics of the world, unite! Free thinkers, join with your brothers! Gee, it sure is easier to come up with this conspiracy/flawed system stuff when you let some political hacks do it for you.
You're under a serious delusion if you think that we operate under a real meritocracy.
I can tell you for sure, eaching at a school that thinks of itself as an Ivy League, and in the sciences/engineering as one of the two top schools that there is alot of nepotism . . . . if you think that GWB got into Yale because of his outstanding achievements, grades and general character then you are just plain wrong!!!
Why are all of the administration linked through chairmanships to particular industry boards? and/or to specific economic interests?
is it just because they are the "best and the brightest"?
NO
you are under this delusion that the way things work is that the cream always floats to the top under some Natural Law of selection.
guess what, the natural Law is about groups of connected individuals who are supporting sets of connections by watching their backs, promoting their friends, and parrotting the party line.
Its "the Old Boy Network" with a few exceptions for spin
I actually like GroupThink as an idea, and I've seen it applied successfully to many different historical scenaria, ex post. But I've also seen it misused quite a bit. It's very easy to make the facts fit the theory in retrospect.
As a scientist who's studied and written about GroupThink and crisis decision-making, do I think GroupThink applies? Maybe on the part of the Iraqi leadership, with an added touch of sadism. To the group in Washington? Nope -- but again, it spins well.
You like groupthink as an idea, eh? It's been applied successfully? You act like it's a conscious decision, when it's actually a subconscious psychological process. I think you're confusing conformity, of which groupthink is a subset, with groupthink. The idea is that it's not some conscious decision, it's a mindset that everyone in a group has, without knowing it. It's like when women start getting on the same menstrual cycles as their close friends. They don't mean to, but it just happens.
So please tell us how groupthink applies in the Iraqi regime (where it's obviously coercion and fear) but doesn't apply to the US gov't, according to the definition BRussell has presented. You've got it backwards, I'm afraid.
[edit: never mind. Study group decision-making and the scientific method on your own dime. Whatever I say isn't going to have any impact anyway. Believe what you want too -- never mind the facts.]
pfflam:
We DO live in a meritocracy, and I feel sorry for you if you still haven't learned that. Politics may not be like that all the time, and academia may not be like that all the time, but you can bet that business is. Sure, there's nepotism everywhere, but by and large people get ahead by merit. If they didn't, our system would soon collapse from incompetence.
[edit: never mind. Study group decision-making and the scientific method on your own dime. Whatever I say isn't going to have any impact anyway. Believe what you want too -- never mind the facts.]
You must have mistaken me for some other members who don't listen to what others have to say. I'm seriously interested in what you've got to say. If you'd repost it, I'd be very appreciative. TIA.
We DO live in a meritocracy, and I feel sorry for you if you still haven't learned that. Politics may not be like that all the time, and academia may not be like that all the time, but you can bet that business is. Sure, there's nepotism everywhere, but by and large people get ahead by merit. If they didn't, our system would soon collapse from incompetence.
I like that idea . . . and I do think that much in our culture really is meritricious
But if you think that CEOs of major oil companies don't look at your pedegree before they test your ability then you're sadly misguided
One thing about the larger Institutions (academic/economic) is that the people who get to their positions for whatever reason, many through connections, pedegree or ideological similarities with those in positions of power, soon see it as their own blood and sweat even if their getting their was understood to be what it was while they were on their way up the ladder
. . . I have seen it too often: specially from east-coast 'old money'-Andover-then Columbia-in the right frats ect . . . if you don't believe it then you are duped by that same self-deception that makes these people think that they earned their take
especially the Frat-boy connection: and we know about that!!
Now I do believe that the majority of functioning in our culture is merit based and I would hope that it would be . . . I believe in hard work and rewards for it . . . at least from a distance *stretch - yawn*--(laziest person alive\ )
I like that idea . . . and I do think that much in our culture really is meritricious
But if you think that CEOs of major oil companies don't look at your pedegree before they test your ability then you're sadly misguided
I don't know anyone who is successful in their field, personally, who got their position on the basis of the "old boy" network. I'm sure I could find a few examples here and there if I though about it. And if you're implying that I got where I am from using the network and not from merit (fraternity or whatever)... please quit slinging mud. I know you're better than that.
Everyone I know, personally, who "has it" worked their asses off for it. If you base your gestalt on politics and/or academia, you're going to be disappointed when you try to generalize.
If you base your gestalt on politics and/or academia, you're going to be disappointed when you try to generalize.
But the point IS politics . . . although the politics here are intimatley tied in with business and the two flow together in a tight tapestry of 'Old Boys'.
finboy: I've done some research and I've come to the conclusion that we're obviously talking about different versions of "groupthink". For me, it's a social psychological phenomenon. One that's bad and leads to poor decision making.
I presume that for you, groupthink is a business psychology (or whatever you call it) thing, that increases group cohesion and is not necessarily a bad thing.
I've come to this conclusion based on the differing viewpoints I found in my search of the literature tonight. In journals like Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we've got my take on it. In the Applied Psych journals, we see your take on it (of course, I'm only assuming because you refuse to give me anything to really go on, other than the fact that you're "a scientist" who's studied it and that you "like it as a concept").
I'm still not sure how, using either definition, the current decision making we've seen isn't groupthink. But, whatever....I don't like the war and nothing will change that anyway...
torifile, I don't think finboy was saying that he likes groupthink, as in groupthink itself is a good thing. He was saying that he likes the idea of using groupthink to analyze poor decision-making.
Anyway, it seems like this Rumsfeldgate hit the fan over the weekend, and he has denied that there is any disagreement. Hmmm...
I'm still not sure how, using either definition, the current decision making we've seen isn't groupthink. But, whatever....I don't like the war and nothing will change that anyway...
My main argument before was that GroupThink can be molded to apply to any situation, after the fact, as long as there's a group and a decision involved. Similarly, no matter WHAT Rumsfeld said over this weekend, folks would attempt to slap Groupthink on it as an explanation. Either he disagreed too much or not enough -- either can be Groupthink. Either he exercised too much control or too little -- either could be from Groupthink.
I don't think that it's some kind of neat technique to be applied, but I think the theory of GroupThink is too general to really be used to determine whether or not a certain decision-making process is dangerous. It is really useful in the sense that anyone who's been through even the most basic Masters course in organizational behavior knows to plan and account for those biases mentioned in the original article link posted. People with training in public policy, management, or economics, or even psychology, would have to be Class A idiots not to consider those problems and biases when making decisions, and they'd work real hard to prevent them, I'm sure.
People...would have to be Class A idiots not to consider those problems and biases when making decisions, and they'd work real hard to prevent them, I'm sure.
He analyzed the faulty decision-making behind Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in particular. More recently this has been applied to the Space shuttle Challenger disaster, and poor decision-making in organizations like Enron.
That's a good point. The initial work by Janis involved analysis of minutes and transcripts of cabinet meetings many years after the events themselves. But while the initial work was descriptive rather than predictive, I think the whole point of the work was to provide a framework to predict problems in advance. Organizational consultants do that kind of thing all the time, and they make specific recommendations about what to do to prevent it from happening, such as the use of outside experts.
What's interesting to me about the Iraq war is that we can look contemporaneously at the decision-making, and ask whether this groupthink fits. And again, I just want to make the point that this was initially applied to Democratic administrations, so it's not some partisan tool used to discredit Republicans.
President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.
Instead, Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks, the officials said.
Dissenting views "were not fully or energetically communicated to the president," said one top official, who, like the others, requested anonymity. "As a result, almost every assumption the plan's based on looks to be wrong."
Comments
Originally posted by torifile
In groupthink, fear does not rule.
If you're saying that fear isn't an important part of GroupThink, you've missed the whole point.
Originally posted by pfflam
Why do these people have power?!?!?!?
it just boggles the mind
Yeah, it does. Either 1) the system's completely flawed and corrupt, or 2) what you've been told about "these people" is incorrect, designed to discredit them using theories contrived to get tenure for social scientists, and designed to exploit the propaganda outlet of the popular media.
It shouldn't boggle the mind -- "these people" are the best, brightest, and most successful that this country has to offer, unlike MOST of their detractors. Our society awards status and power on the basis of success and merit, for the most part, and that's who "these people" are in the first place.
I actually like GroupThink as an idea, and I've seen it applied successfully to many different historical scenaria, ex post. But I've also seen it misused quite a bit. It's very easy to make the facts fit the theory in retrospect.
As a scientist who's studied and written about GroupThink and crisis decision-making, do I think GroupThink applies? Maybe on the part of the Iraqi leadership, with an added touch of sadism. To the group in Washington? Nope -- but again, it spins well.
Independent critics of the world, unite! Free thinkers, join with your brothers! Gee, it sure is easier to come up with this conspiracy/flawed system stuff when you let some political hacks do it for you.
Originally posted by finboy
Yeah, it does. Either 1) the system's completely flawed and corrupt, or 2) what you've been told about "these people" is incorrect, designed to discredit them using theories contrived to get tenure for social scientists, and designed to exploit the propaganda outlet of the popular media.
It shouldn't boggle the mind -- "these people" are the best, brightest, and most successful that this country has to offer, unlike MOST of their detractors. Our society awards status and power on the basis of success and merit, for the most part, and that's who "these people" are in the first place.
I actually like GroupThink as an idea, and I've seen it applied successfully to many different historical scenaria, ex post. But I've also seen it misused quite a bit. It's very easy to make the facts fit the theory in retrospect.
As a scientist who's studied and written about GroupThink and crisis decision-making, do I think GroupThink applies? Maybe on the part of the Iraqi leadership, with an added touch of sadism. To the group in Washington? Nope -- but again, it spins well.
Independent critics of the world, unite! Free thinkers, join with your brothers! Gee, it sure is easier to come up with this conspiracy/flawed system stuff when you let some political hacks do it for you.
You're under a serious delusion if you think that we operate under a real meritocracy.
I can tell you for sure, eaching at a school that thinks of itself as an Ivy League, and in the sciences/engineering as one of the two top schools that there is alot of nepotism . . . . if you think that GWB got into Yale because of his outstanding achievements, grades and general character then you are just plain wrong!!!
Why are all of the administration linked through chairmanships to particular industry boards? and/or to specific economic interests?
is it just because they are the "best and the brightest"?
NO
you are under this delusion that the way things work is that the cream always floats to the top under some Natural Law of selection.
guess what, the natural Law is about groups of connected individuals who are supporting sets of connections by watching their backs, promoting their friends, and parrotting the party line.
Its "the Old Boy Network" with a few exceptions for spin
Originally posted by finboy
If you're saying that fear isn't an important part of GroupThink, you've missed the whole point.
What's the point then?
Originally posted by finboy
I actually like GroupThink as an idea, and I've seen it applied successfully to many different historical scenaria, ex post. But I've also seen it misused quite a bit. It's very easy to make the facts fit the theory in retrospect.
As a scientist who's studied and written about GroupThink and crisis decision-making, do I think GroupThink applies? Maybe on the part of the Iraqi leadership, with an added touch of sadism. To the group in Washington? Nope -- but again, it spins well.
You like groupthink as an idea, eh? It's been applied successfully? You act like it's a conscious decision, when it's actually a subconscious psychological process. I think you're confusing conformity, of which groupthink is a subset, with groupthink. The idea is that it's not some conscious decision, it's a mindset that everyone in a group has, without knowing it. It's like when women start getting on the same menstrual cycles as their close friends. They don't mean to, but it just happens.
So please tell us how groupthink applies in the Iraqi regime (where it's obviously coercion and fear) but doesn't apply to the US gov't, according to the definition BRussell has presented. You've got it backwards, I'm afraid.
[edit: never mind. Study group decision-making and the scientific method on your own dime. Whatever I say isn't going to have any impact anyway. Believe what you want too -- never mind the facts.]
pfflam:
We DO live in a meritocracy, and I feel sorry for you if you still haven't learned that. Politics may not be like that all the time, and academia may not be like that all the time, but you can bet that business is. Sure, there's nepotism everywhere, but by and large people get ahead by merit. If they didn't, our system would soon collapse from incompetence.
Originally posted by finboy
If they didn't, our system would soon collapse from incompetence.
I think the current Bush administration is making a great case for this.
He said that rather than test forces against an unpredictable enemy, the exercise ?was almost entirely scripted to ensure a [U.S. military] ?win.? ?
Surely a scripted wargame is worth almost nothing?
Originally posted by finboy
torifile:
[edit: never mind. Study group decision-making and the scientific method on your own dime. Whatever I say isn't going to have any impact anyway. Believe what you want too -- never mind the facts.]
You must have mistaken me for some other members who don't listen to what others have to say. I'm seriously interested in what you've got to say. If you'd repost it, I'd be very appreciative. TIA.
Originally posted by finboy
pfflam:
We DO live in a meritocracy, and I feel sorry for you if you still haven't learned that. Politics may not be like that all the time, and academia may not be like that all the time, but you can bet that business is. Sure, there's nepotism everywhere, but by and large people get ahead by merit. If they didn't, our system would soon collapse from incompetence.
I like that idea . . . and I do think that much in our culture really is meritricious
But if you think that CEOs of major oil companies don't look at your pedegree before they test your ability then you're sadly misguided
One thing about the larger Institutions (academic/economic) is that the people who get to their positions for whatever reason, many through connections, pedegree or ideological similarities with those in positions of power, soon see it as their own blood and sweat even if their getting their was understood to be what it was while they were on their way up the ladder
. . . I have seen it too often: specially from east-coast 'old money'-Andover-then Columbia-in the right frats ect . . . if you don't believe it then you are duped by that same self-deception that makes these people think that they earned their take
especially the Frat-boy connection: and we know about that!!
Now I do believe that the majority of functioning in our culture is merit based and I would hope that it would be . . . I believe in hard work and rewards for it . . . at least from a distance *stretch - yawn*--(laziest person alive
Originally posted by pfflam
I like that idea . . . and I do think that much in our culture really is meritricious
But if you think that CEOs of major oil companies don't look at your pedegree before they test your ability then you're sadly misguided
I don't know anyone who is successful in their field, personally, who got their position on the basis of the "old boy" network. I'm sure I could find a few examples here and there if I though about it. And if you're implying that I got where I am from using the network and not from merit (fraternity or whatever)... please quit slinging mud. I know you're better than that.
Everyone I know, personally, who "has it" worked their asses off for it. If you base your gestalt on politics and/or academia, you're going to be disappointed when you try to generalize.
Originally posted by finboy
If you base your gestalt on politics and/or academia, you're going to be disappointed when you try to generalize.
But the point IS politics . . . although the politics here are intimatley tied in with business and the two flow together in a tight tapestry of 'Old Boys'.
I presume that for you, groupthink is a business psychology (or whatever you call it) thing, that increases group cohesion and is not necessarily a bad thing.
I've come to this conclusion based on the differing viewpoints I found in my search of the literature tonight. In journals like Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we've got my take on it. In the Applied Psych journals, we see your take on it (of course, I'm only assuming because you refuse to give me anything to really go on, other than the fact that you're "a scientist" who's studied it and that you "like it as a concept").
I'm still not sure how, using either definition, the current decision making we've seen isn't groupthink. But, whatever....I don't like the war and nothing will change that anyway...
Anyway, it seems like this Rumsfeldgate hit the fan over the weekend, and he has denied that there is any disagreement. Hmmm...
Originally posted by torifile
I'm still not sure how, using either definition, the current decision making we've seen isn't groupthink. But, whatever....I don't like the war and nothing will change that anyway...
My main argument before was that GroupThink can be molded to apply to any situation, after the fact, as long as there's a group and a decision involved. Similarly, no matter WHAT Rumsfeld said over this weekend, folks would attempt to slap Groupthink on it as an explanation. Either he disagreed too much or not enough -- either can be Groupthink. Either he exercised too much control or too little -- either could be from Groupthink.
I don't think that it's some kind of neat technique to be applied, but I think the theory of GroupThink is too general to really be used to determine whether or not a certain decision-making process is dangerous. It is really useful in the sense that anyone who's been through even the most basic Masters course in organizational behavior knows to plan and account for those biases mentioned in the original article link posted. People with training in public policy, management, or economics, or even psychology, would have to be Class A idiots not to consider those problems and biases when making decisions, and they'd work real hard to prevent them, I'm sure.
Originally posted by finboy
People...would have to be Class A idiots not to consider those problems and biases when making decisions, and they'd work real hard to prevent them, I'm sure.
I think we're on to something here....
He analyzed the faulty decision-making behind Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in particular. More recently this has been applied to the Space shuttle Challenger disaster, and poor decision-making in organizations like Enron.
Bah, hindsight is 20/20.
can he use this to predict future problems?
Originally posted by bunge
I think we're on to something here....
. . . .psssst . .The Emperor is NAKED . . .pass it on
Originally posted by alcimedes
Bah, hindsight is 20/20.
can he use this to predict future problems?
That's a good point. The initial work by Janis involved analysis of minutes and transcripts of cabinet meetings many years after the events themselves. But while the initial work was descriptive rather than predictive, I think the whole point of the work was to provide a framework to predict problems in advance. Organizational consultants do that kind of thing all the time, and they make specific recommendations about what to do to prevent it from happening, such as the use of outside experts.
What's interesting to me about the Iraq war is that we can look contemporaneously at the decision-making, and ask whether this groupthink fits. And again, I just want to make the point that this was initially applied to Democratic administrations, so it's not some partisan tool used to discredit Republicans.
More evidence from this Knight-Ridder article:
President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.
Instead, Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks, the officials said.
Dissenting views "were not fully or energetically communicated to the president," said one top official, who, like the others, requested anonymity. "As a result, almost every assumption the plan's based on looks to be wrong."