3 ms·

Group think is well known, but it's also a force that works against individual think. Similar versions of the same symptom emerges as group hearing, group speac

Group think is well known, but it's also a force that works against individual think. Similar versions of the same symptom emerges as group hearing, group speach, and group action. Thinking alone is easy. Thinking with someone is hard. Now keep adding people. You stop thinking. Same with hearing. Listening to one person is easy. How about two people. If they don't share their time, you're listening to two people talk at once. Same with actions. With more people, thoughts become more ideological and less mobile. Same with speech, same with what they listen to, and same with their actions. And each individual is not only physically a fraction of the group, but so are their senses. And to act humane or to simply perform on an individual level is directly hindered by this group dynamic. Individuals then become lethargic, and begin to experience greater stress and pain. You could also think of this as the Group Flu. I know I've experienced it. It's the feeling you get when you know you need to talk to someone higher up just to be heard. It's the feeling you get when you're talking to a customer service rep and you know you're not talking to a person. Now take a large organization and we have a group of groups. We already know one group cannot do it all, and one group is too inefficient. But if we're just creating more groups, the problem persists. So what you need is to undo the group dynamic. But then again, with a big successful organization, maybe change is what you don't want? Ideology is what you do want, and suppressing the individuals leads to your ongoing success.

agumonkey 5y ago
There's also a balancing effect from being in a group. Thinking alone is easy, as is going insane in your own belief. Other people acts as averager, additional data points.
- backwheni 5y ago
  Balancing how? Say each member has a point, and additional members have counterpoints to balance the group. What exactly happened? As a member with a point countered, you've effectively been silenced. You have a group where extremes are neutralized. That is either a set goal by whomever controls the group, or works towards the greater ideology that becomes the group voice and group think that no one member can overturn. You don't need to be in a group to have additional data points. Thinking alone might be easy, but not thinking in a group is also easy. That's what most members end up doing.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    Maybe you've never been stuck long enough in your own head, but i did spend years with big blind spots about life, and the ability to talk with others would have saved my many many years. Also you sounds biased against groups. Sharing points of view don't equate being silenced. Having more data alone still means you're the sole interpreter, you perspective / understanding of the world might still be too focused on part of the space. Others can widen the angle, change your position. Of course politics can distort things too, but that's outside my comment. I was talking about conceptual group, small, free of agendas. Just a bunch of people saying what they see. Not every group is ruled by someone (even though most of the time there are such implicit social structures, I agree)
    - iABzWratDc3RoW 5y ago
      You don't need to be in a group to talk to other people. You also qualify "group" with functionless groups. I am biased against group think. But also group speech, group emotion, and group everything else, as they are all inferior to their individual counterparts. Group emotion is a mob. If you've been in a group where the group changes your independent behavior, or you relinquish your decisions to the group, you've just downgraded yourself. And if you look at all the stupid in the world, most are done by groups.

agumonkey 5y ago

There's also a balancing effect from being in a group. Thinking alone is easy, as is going insane in your own belief. Other people acts as averager, additional data points.

backwheni 5y ago
Balancing how? Say each member has a point, and additional members have counterpoints to balance the group. What exactly happened? As a member with a point countered, you've effectively been silenced. You have a group where extremes are neutralized. That is either a set goal by whomever controls the group, or works towards the greater ideology that becomes the group voice and group think that no one member can overturn. You don't need to be in a group to have additional data points. Thinking alone might be easy, but not thinking in a group is also easy. That's what most members end up doing.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  Maybe you've never been stuck long enough in your own head, but i did spend years with big blind spots about life, and the ability to talk with others would have saved my many many years. Also you sounds biased against groups. Sharing points of view don't equate being silenced. Having more data alone still means you're the sole interpreter, you perspective / understanding of the world might still be too focused on part of the space. Others can widen the angle, change your position. Of course politics can distort things too, but that's outside my comment. I was talking about conceptual group, small, free of agendas. Just a bunch of people saying what they see. Not every group is ruled by someone (even though most of the time there are such implicit social structures, I agree)
  - iABzWratDc3RoW 5y ago
    You don't need to be in a group to talk to other people. You also qualify "group" with functionless groups. I am biased against group think. But also group speech, group emotion, and group everything else, as they are all inferior to their individual counterparts. Group emotion is a mob. If you've been in a group where the group changes your independent behavior, or you relinquish your decisions to the group, you've just downgraded yourself. And if you look at all the stupid in the world, most are done by groups.