3 ms·

>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 s

>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.

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.