5 ms·

The problem with most of these kinds of analyses of groupthink, is that everything they say is a characteristic of groupthink, is also characteristic of achievi

The problem with most of these kinds of analyses of groupthink, is that everything they say is a characteristic of groupthink, is also characteristic of achieving consensus of any sort. We don't call it self-censorship unless it turns out badly, because the absolute lack of self-censorship is cacophony where nothing is ever decided. "Belief in inherent morality of the group", is not what we call it when it turns out that, say, those in favor of abolitionism _were_ in the right. We only call it that when it turns out to be false. I've seen cases where you actually lack all of the things listed here, and they are groups which are never able to agree on a course of action, or cooperate to achieve anything. You call it either "agreement" or "groupthink" depending on whether it turns out to be good or not. Which means, that a list of "symptoms" like this will not help you to discover in advance whether the group in question has a problem, which is what is actually needed. It's something that can give you the comforting illusion of being able to detect groupthink ("it won't happen to me"), without in fact helping you actually notice when the group you're part of is heading off in the wrong direction.

naravara 7y ago
>s that everything they say is a characteristic of groupthink, is also characteristic of achieving consensus of any sort. ALL of them? How about: - Outgroup stereotypes? - Self-appointed mind guards to insulate leadership from challenging ideas? - Illusion of unanimity? I don't see how any of those are necessary for consensus. Same for self-censorship really. One can voice disagreement with a course of action and then agree to go down it anyway to be a team player. People do this all the time.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  "- Self-appointed mind guards to insulate leadership from challenging ideas?" this one I can see in a consensus environment. At some point it's not useful when people keep questioning the decided upon course of action and it may be necessary to stop listening to them.
  - naravara 7y ago
    That's not really about griping after something has been decided. This was about obfuscating the actual risks or concerns.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  "One can voice disagreement with a course of action and then agree to go down it anyway to be a team player. People do this all the time..." Yes, and at the point you stop repeating your disagreement, you have begun to self-censor. People who say everything they think, are described as "having no filter". The difference between "self-censoring" and "having no filter", is whether you think it's a good idea or not. Groups where those opposed to an idea do not, at some point, stop saying so, do not cooperate well. Which is not to say that it isn't often a bad thing that they stop saying so. However, knowing whether it counts as "self-censoring", requires knowledge of whether their criticisms are well-founded, rather than providing that knowledge.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    > Yes, and at the point you stop repeating your disagreement, you have begun to self-censor. At what point is choosing not to repeat yourself not self-censorship? If there is no such point, I'd say the term defined this way is meaningless.
  - naravara 7y ago
    >Yes, and at the point you stop repeating your disagreement, you have begun to self-censor. Absolutely not and even making this comment seems indicative of really unhealthy communication dynamics in a team. Censorship is specifically suppression of statements due to concerns about their political consequences. Simply not being a curmudgeon who keeps griping about decision long after it has been made. That's just called being a productive member of a team. The point of team communication is to accomplish a task up to standard, not to ejaculate personal commentary about whatever happens. The article is specifically talking about censorship of perspectives that have a material impact of outcomes during decision points.
lucideer 7y ago
> the absolute lack of self-censorship is cacophony where nothing is ever decided I don't believe this, and I've engaged in processes where this was not the case (albeit on a relatively small scale). Requirements for effective consensus without self-censorship are: 1. a strict, ordered and budgeted process for airing views. Your cacophony only occurs without such process (such cacophony also leads to a different form of censorship, simply by "survival of the loudest"). 2. a deliberative decision making process: the best way to alienate (and encourage self-censorship in) someone is to assign finality to decisions they oppose. It's also the best way to delay decisions. Controversial decisions can be expedited if there isn't perceived to be a barrier to reconsidering them later. Or to put it a different way: people who don't agree with a direction an org takes are more likely to remain committed to that org if their later "I told you so"s are taken on board.
- manifestsilence 7y ago
  This is an important distinction. Consensus does not mean agreement. Not everyone has to think the idea is the best or even good, they just need to all accept it as viable. It seems that "group-think" is more about agreement than consensus. An insistence on agreement silences opposing views. A search for consensus entertains them all but recognizes the need for a group decision to be reached.
  - lucideer 7y ago
    > An insistence on agreement silences opposing views. A search for consensus entertains them all but recognizes the need for a group decision to be reached. Well put. I think a lot of the stigma around the word consensus comes from undertaking it without this understanding. A.K.A. design-by-committee, etc.

naravara 7y ago

>s that everything they say is a characteristic of groupthink, is also characteristic of achieving consensus of any sort. ALL of them? How about: - Outgroup stereotypes? - Self-appointed mind guards to insulate leadership from challenging ideas? - Illusion of unanimity? I don't see how any of those are necessary for consensus. Same for self-censorship really. One can voice disagreement with a course of action and then agree to go down it anyway to be a team player. People do this all the time.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
"- Self-appointed mind guards to insulate leadership from challenging ideas?" this one I can see in a consensus environment. At some point it's not useful when people keep questioning the decided upon course of action and it may be necessary to stop listening to them.
- naravara 7y ago
  That's not really about griping after something has been decided. This was about obfuscating the actual risks or concerns.
rossdavidh 7y ago
"One can voice disagreement with a course of action and then agree to go down it anyway to be a team player. People do this all the time..." Yes, and at the point you stop repeating your disagreement, you have begun to self-censor. People who say everything they think, are described as "having no filter". The difference between "self-censoring" and "having no filter", is whether you think it's a good idea or not. Groups where those opposed to an idea do not, at some point, stop saying so, do not cooperate well. Which is not to say that it isn't often a bad thing that they stop saying so. However, knowing whether it counts as "self-censoring", requires knowledge of whether their criticisms are well-founded, rather than providing that knowledge.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  > Yes, and at the point you stop repeating your disagreement, you have begun to self-censor. At what point is choosing not to repeat yourself not self-censorship? If there is no such point, I'd say the term defined this way is meaningless.
- naravara 7y ago
  >Yes, and at the point you stop repeating your disagreement, you have begun to self-censor. Absolutely not and even making this comment seems indicative of really unhealthy communication dynamics in a team. Censorship is specifically suppression of statements due to concerns about their political consequences. Simply not being a curmudgeon who keeps griping about decision long after it has been made. That's just called being a productive member of a team. The point of team communication is to accomplish a task up to standard, not to ejaculate personal commentary about whatever happens. The article is specifically talking about censorship of perspectives that have a material impact of outcomes during decision points.

lucideer 7y ago

> the absolute lack of self-censorship is cacophony where nothing is ever decided I don't believe this, and I've engaged in processes where this was not the case (albeit on a relatively small scale). Requirements for effective consensus without self-censorship are: 1. a strict, ordered and budgeted process for airing views. Your cacophony only occurs without such process (such cacophony also leads to a different form of censorship, simply by "survival of the loudest"). 2. a deliberative decision making process: the best way to alienate (and encourage self-censorship in) someone is to assign finality to decisions they oppose. It's also the best way to delay decisions. Controversial decisions can be expedited if there isn't perceived to be a barrier to reconsidering them later. Or to put it a different way: people who don't agree with a direction an org takes are more likely to remain committed to that org if their later "I told you so"s are taken on board.

manifestsilence 7y ago
This is an important distinction. Consensus does not mean agreement. Not everyone has to think the idea is the best or even good, they just need to all accept it as viable. It seems that "group-think" is more about agreement than consensus. An insistence on agreement silences opposing views. A search for consensus entertains them all but recognizes the need for a group decision to be reached.
- lucideer 7y ago
  > An insistence on agreement silences opposing views. A search for consensus entertains them all but recognizes the need for a group decision to be reached. Well put. I think a lot of the stigma around the word consensus comes from undertaking it without this understanding. A.K.A. design-by-committee, etc.