Sat, 12/13/2008 - 1:20pm — vastleft
A pretty interesting article (h/t No Blood for Hubris, via e-mail):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
IIRC, there’s some recent “movement” that those four pairs of shoes fit like a glove.In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
- Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
- Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
- Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
- Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
- Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
- Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
- Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
Since it would be gauche to consider whether stultifying groupthink overcame PB1.0 and real-world progressive discourse this year — and that it might bode ill for the ability for those critical (to any degree) of the forthcoming administration to effect left-ward change — I look forward to hearing that shrill C-list blogs-non-gratae are the real groupthinkers.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
»
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
groupthink & Party affiliation --
it took being early and overtly discarded, and seeing what i had always seen as "my party" totally abandon both the appearance of -- and worse, substance behind and vows to fight for -- traditional Democratic policy positions and strengths to finally snap me out of my deeply embedded groupthink.
and what's even worse is that once i had snapped out of it, seeing everyone else still accept it -- even in the face of clear evidence that it didn't mean what it used to, or what people thought it did -- simply reinforced how very embedded/automatic it all is in all of us, no matter what.
like, that falling back on groupthink, and our tribal ids was shown to be far more important than the issues and policies that made people identify as Democrats in the first place -- and the real implications of that is so very disheartening on so many levels -- and hurts us all so much.
Isn't that the lesson of the Bush years, tho?
falling back on groupthink, and our tribal ids was shown to be far more important than the issues and policies that made people identify as Democrats in the first place
That instead of ideas, pushing the correct sequence of baser human reactions, could result in electoral victory. Obama and his supporters just used different triggers. I remember back in 2004, I was still a news-monitor during the election, and the goal of the Dems then, was to win the battle of ideas. I guess after that election, a considerable chunk of the party, fell prey to the premise of "win at any costs".
That's my problem with this past election season. Achieving victory by exacerbating our already deep divisions, was never going to ensure a united nation to move forward in the ways we must to persevere what is to come. But "we" won! But at what cost, I ask.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
i see it differently--
that despite the abandonment of issues, and the party's selection of Obama and actions to ensure he got the nomination , people still credited the party (and Obama by extension) with attributes and stances that were clearly no longer there --
"everyone knows Democrats are better for the economy"
"of course he's anti-war -- Republicans are the warmongers"
"Republicans are the racists, and we're showing how much better we are"
"Democrats believe in the power of government to improve our lives, so of course Obama will act that way"
"of course he's actually liberal and/or progressive -- he's a Democrat, and he's a minority too"
"of course he'll reverse all the horrors -- that's what Democrats do"
rinse and repeat even now.
That no matter what the party wanted, or who Obama really is, voters simply relied on groupthink in terms of party -- and even after it was made crystal-clear he wasn't at all fitting it or cared to even try.
Even swing voters fell back on the groupthink and accepted ideas of what the party stood for -- especially when the economy was clearly tanking.
I do agree
But my thoughts were about the primary, not the general. The line about tribal ids caught my attention, because isn't that exactly where all the misogyny came from, the ultimate us vs them.
Using the tribal id, is also what got Obama his group of dedicated supporters, that allowed this groupthink behavior to disseminate. Which is also another recreation of the Bush years, too.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
on the primaries--
there totally was that and it totally was divisive by intention -- but then most registered Democrats actually chose the one who was for traditional Democratic things, no? -- and that wasn't Obama.
the groupthink Obama supporters had wasn't the party id groupthink i mean -- altho it was fundamental for them overall -- it made all the expectations, rationalizations, and outright delusions possible -- and still does, i'd say.
here's a good example--
digby on Chris Matthews running in PA --
that's party id groupthink, and Matthews breaks it for her (altho her "don't know quite how to deal with this" means even that isn't certain.) She used it and still does for Obama, but she can't for Matthews.
Aeryl--just saw this--related--
applicable to the Democratic Party, and Obama supporters in relation to them, i think---
(from a review of a new Disraeli book)read Democratic Party as the "wounded social group", and Obama presenting himself as free of all that, i guess.
"any Democratic pol by definition represents progressive values"
i'm coming across a ton of it today --
Hildebrand: Obama Has Lots of Liberals in His Administration, Like Rahm Emanuel
In PBII, we see the beginnings of group think
in the obsession with trolls that one prominent PUMA site exhibits. And yes, the mind-guards are there to prevent the trolls from getting in - at least, that is how they see it. The wagons are circled and from that vortex rises group think and the narcissistic daisy chain of insiders and outsiders.
Maybe it is somewhat inevitable
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays