
Symptoms of Groupthink (2012) - aleyan
https://courses.washington.edu/psii101/Powerpoints/Symptoms%20of%20Groupthink.htm
======
rossdavidh
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
>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.

~~~
rossdavidh
"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.

~~~
naravara
>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.

------
motohagiography
Criticisms of groupthink and other anti-patterns are funny to me because they
presume that if people only had access to these valuable insights they would
change. Organizational anti-patterns are rarely broken, they work for someone,
and someone's salary depends on sustaining that dissonance.

The work in large organizations is to achieve outcomes within the broken and
inconsistent rules of their internal logic, so as to preserve the integrity of
them, and not the outcomes themselves. The essence of being a geek, nerd, or
technologist is to focus on the outcomes and problem solving to achieve them,
whereas the essence of being typical is to be a working part of the system to
sustain it, independent of it's outcomes.

Warren Buffett said, "I try to invest in businesses that are so wonderful that
an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will."

To me, the point of a startup is to defect from these dissonance machines and
create something people actually want. Viewed this way, a startup is not a
business. It's like an anti-business that gets absorbed by a business and
releases stored potential revenue in the collision.

Groupthink might be more of a sign than a problem. It's possible that it is a
sign of the growth stage of a business and whether it's ready to absorb
something, or just be hollowed out in some long term private equity cost
optimization hell.

~~~
asdfman123
It's easy to be cynical but I believe some corporate cultures are far
healthier than others. I believe lots of companies try to avoid the HiPPO
effect (deferring to highest paid person's opinion) with varying success.

I worked for a few years at Shell though and now I'm wary of ever working for
a large corporation again. The sweet spot I've found is mid-sized companies,
where they're small enough where they can't just absorb the costs of useless
software projects, but big enough where there isn't the mad scramble to ship.
(I've never worked for a startup, though, so apologies if that's an unfair
characterization.)

~~~
growlist
> I worked for a few years at Shell though and now I'm wary of ever working
> for a large corporation again

I didn't find them that bad tbh, I think that there's good parts and bad parts
in all monsters like Shell - my take was that their size, heritage and
criticality to the global economy has resulted in them developing certain
bureaucratic traits akin to a governmental civil service, but even with that
said they do some amazing stuff (which most civil services cannot get anywhere
near) - and I worked with probably the smartest IT pros I've met in my career.
They operate a massive global IT infrastructure at scale and they do it pretty
well, with some aspects being indisputably world-leading.

~~~
asdfman123
Oh yeah, definitely. Shell is not a office but a zillion offices spread
throughout the globe.

Probably my main problem was I worked for the data management department where
the most experienced people were semi-technical and had geoscience
backgrounds. Intelligent people, but internal software tools were still very
new to them and many were still doing things they did in the 80s.

~~~
growlist
One of my favourite Shell memories is when Outlook malfunctioned and sent an
email to thousands of people in error, many of whom then also replied saying
'me too' to an initial reply-all email that said 'I got this email in error'.
It happened several times until the CIO was forced to send a company wide
email saying 'Please don't reply all when you receive an email in error, it
takes several days processing for Outlook to catch up'.

------
Ididntdothis
I know groupthink has a negative connotation and can be damaging but on the
other hand it seems necessary to have some kind of groupthink in order to
align an organization on a goal. Especially in areas where there is not a
clear cut decision what’s best you have to form a group opinion that assumes
certain things. For example in software dev at some point you have to decide
on an architecture and live with it even if there are alternatives that are as
good. People who constantly reopen that question are not really helpful at
some point. The danger is probably for people to stick to that decision for
too long even after weaknesses start showing up. But I think especially for a
large organization it’s hard to find the point when it’s time to change
course.

I guess all I want to say is that damaging groupthink is easy to spot in
hindsight but that well functioning organizations also rely on groupthink. And
that it’s quite hard to distinguish between positive and necessary groupthink
and negative groupthink.

~~~
ben_w
Are you sure that’s groupthink that you’re describing?

Groupthink isn’t mere agreement, but specifically agreement contrary to the
professional (not personal) options of informed experts.

“It’s not my first choice, but it will do” isn’t, I think, in that category.

~~~
asdf21
What about when all the informed experts are wrong?

Like consuming dietary cholesterol causing high blood cholesterol?

Or trans fats being healthier than saturated fats?

Or tariffs harming the US economy?

~~~
lopmotr
How can your group know something that informed experts don't? If you have
special knowledge they don't, then they aren't informed. Your group might
knowingly take a risk in guessing the experts are wrong, perhaps to test a
novel idea, but that's not the same as refusing to recognize their opinion as
valid, like in groupthink.

~~~
asdf21
"Experts" are especially prone to groupthink, this has been shown numerous
times.

People can be "informed" about something and still need to shut-up about it,
when it's politically incorrect / represents a unpopular view, when it puts
their income / reputation at risk, etc.

Experts have more to lose, so they are especially vulnerable to this sort of
pressure.

~~~
lopmotr
Of course experts can be wrong, but you won't know that they wrong or how in
any particular instance, so you won't be justified in agreeing on something
contrary and silencing dissenters who bring up the expert opinion.

I'm just talking about obvious reasonable behavior here. For instance, experts
probably agree that nuclear radiation causes cancer. It would not be sensible
to believe that nuclear radiation doesn't cause cancer and then expose people
to that radiation, believing it's harmless just because experts are at risk of
being corrupted.

------
aazaa
It might be interesting to list some contraindications as well. What aspects
of group dynamics work against groupthink, or are signs of its absence?

I suspect all of them could be view as anti-patterns. For example:

\- frequent dissent

\- group frequently breaks ranks when new facts emerge

\- lack of confidence

\- lack of a clearly-defined enemy

\- lack of consistent message/frequent flip-flopping

It seems likely that some aspects of groupthink are essential for any
collective action. Without it, people can't or won't work together. With too
much, the group makes mistakes no individual would have made.

------
miguelmota
Groupthink happens because humans are tribal by nature. Tribes provide
protection as long as you comply with their principles. Doing something
contrarian is questioning those principles which is a threat to the tribe.
Groupthink keeps you from being ostracized from the group as long as you go
along with it because it’s desirable to be accepted in that tribe in order to
achieve your long-term plans.

------
bentona
I have a feeling this will be true for most, but I immediately thought of the
increasingly common political bubbles we often exist in today, especially
given facebook feed algorithms, etc.

------
asdfman123
Does anyone else go crazy in the presence of groupthink?

I've never been unpopular and I'm the kind of guy to make friends with
individuals in various groups, but I've always been allergic to cliques.

Whenever I find myself part of an in-group that's rapidly converging on
groupthink, I get deeply uncomfortable and don't last long there. When I'm on
the periphery of a rapidly coalescing clique, I often find myself becoming the
outspoken outsider.

I just can't stand people agreeing on everything -- I've got to play the
contrarian. Universal agreement just doesn't seem safe or comfortable.

I feel I have a natural resistance to groupthink and it's a huge liability.
Most people seem to love forming into tribes.

And frankly, how do you stop the ever-present march of groupthink? I guess key
is creating a culture where respectful disagreement is encouraged and
expected, where people can openly admit to being wrong without losing face.

~~~
bilbo0s
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this probably makes you part of a
group. There are probably people who will comment agreeing with you is what
I'm trying to say.

We're all, kind of, members of the People's Front of Judea. (Except, of
course, for those of us who are members of the Judean People's Front.)

I commented on this before. Basically, most of us are rebellious in almost
exactly the same manner as every other "rebellious" person. Same taglines.
Same clothes. Same beliefs. Same pass times. Etc etc etc. We've all become the
brooding teenager, who believes him or herself to be unique and counter
cultural. Yet somehow that teen still looks, sounds and dresses like every
other unique and counter cultural teenager on the planet.

As humans, we haven't really come up with a way to escape groupthink. That
fact has got me wondering if groupthink is simply a facet not so much of human
behavioral psychology, but rather a facet almost of evolutionary behavior?
Something we can't tear ourselves away from, because it's literally who we
are? We basically only choose which group we are part of, whether or not we're
aware of it.

~~~
cobbzilla
Your comment reminded me of one my favorite posters:

[https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/individ...](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/individualitydemotivator.jpeg)

------
hi41
>> At the hearing, engineer Brian Russell noted that NASA managers had shifted
the moral rules under which they operated.

I would like to juxtapose it with the current sway of moral relativism - It is
okay for you but not okay for others. Where does one draw the line between an
absolute moral code and an opinion.

------
workthrowaway
> Self-Censorship

this one is interesting.

~~~
dandelo53
Human's are lazy by what once was necessity, and that is still deeply rooted
in our behavior.

Most folks in tech can grok that Laziness can be a virtue.

However, modern society has perverted the image this trait reflects to appear
somehow inferior to "hard work."

We live in a society where we are raised to "endure" adulthood. It definitely
doesn't have to be like this now. Whether it did in order to achieve the tech
at hand is a lovely debate to be had... if only more people could hear the
opportunity is literally pounding at the door begging to come in.

Wishful thinking anyway...`

------
notelonmusk
For mobile users :

[https://pastebin.com/raw/ik8YPBhy](https://pastebin.com/raw/ik8YPBhy)

------
diego
After reading the article, I realized that if a site like HN or Reddit wanted
to mitigate groupthink, they would want to limit how much an item can be
upvoted or downvoted (e.g. max 5 like Slashdot did).

Apparently people really like groupthink, it increases engagement.

~~~
greenpresident
In my opinion, groupthink on social media is to be understood as a Keynesian
beauty contest. [0]

Suppose you‘d want to determine who among a group of entrants in a beauty is
the most beautiful according to _standards shared by the group_. Such
determinations are hard to make, as every judge would usually vote according
to their private norms of beauty, not the groups. One way to overcome this,
would be to give a price to the two judges who are closest to the final
result. In this setup, you‘d be incentivized to vote according to the norms
you believe to be the overall group norm, not your individual norm. The result
would be „the groups belief about what the group sees as beautiful“.

Social media such reddit and Facebook incorporates this concepts on two
levels:

\- At the user level, users aiming to gather likes/karma/... are incentivized
to submit content they believe the group finds most useful. Of course this is
why we instate voting systems in the first place, so that great content
(according to the communities standard for such) is submitted. On the other
hand, this incentive scheme drives unpopular opinions to the margins. Hence,
fringe content is more likely to be found on sites without a like system such
as image boards. There, a different incentive exists: survival of your post
directly depends on engagement, so it‘s more likely to stay afloat if it’s
provocative.

\- Then, at the platform level, sites faced with the decision of what to show
their users, also face a beauty contest: they select what is most likely to be
liked. The perverse result is an eternal perpetuation of groupthink, as
contributors facing a „likability selection“ are unfree in what they submit.
If it’s deemed not controversial enough/not likable enough, they will wither
away. So they keep perpetuating the ever same content and jokes.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest)

~~~
whatshisface
There's no reward for up-voting a post that goes on to receive a lot more up-
votes, and there's no penalty for up-voting a post that goes on to receive a
lot of down-votes. Therefore the judging mechanism itself (the votes) is not
subject to the Keynesian beauty contest problem.

~~~
greenpresident
That‘s true, it‘s not present at the voting level. But I believe it’s present
at the level of submitting and feed selection.

------
foobar_
How do you avoid it ?

