The Danger of Groupthink Part 2: Unanimity and Paranoia #JHedzWorlD

The Danger of Groupthink Part 2: Unanimity and Paranoia #JHedzWorlD

Groupthink is a type of conformity within a group that prevents members from dissenting, either because they cannot exercise critical thinking skills to recognize problems in group policy or function; or they are unwilling to express their dissent.

As psychologist Irving Janis framed the concept of Groupthink, the more homogeneous and cohesive the group, the more likely it is to fall into the errors of Groupthink.

We’ve already discussed two remarkable groups that successfully reached their objectives without falling into Groupthink. The first group, the so-called “Tiger Team” that helped bring the Apollo 13 mission home, was not homogeneous. Yes, they were all white guys who were engineers and physicists. But the group was made up of men of different departments and disciplines to view problems from different angles and come up with solutions.

But the group was cohesive. All of them were highly motivated for the group to succeed. They were all dedicated to the mission as a whole and understood how to work together, even when they dissented, to achieve success.

The Comic Con group was the inverse: a very homogeneous group, sharing a similar cultural orientation that is distinctively Geeky. Yet they lacked cohesion. These people come together once a year or even less frequently, but–without charter, rules, or written procedure, without all members knowing each other all that well, except in small groups–they launched a successful counter protest against Westboro Baptist that was peaceful and effective.

Groupthink: Dissent not Allowed
But there are groups in which members so closely identify with their group that the group itself becomes the purpose of the group. And so it becomes crucially important for the group to be unanimous in all things, an unrealistic approach if ever there was one.

At its foundation, a group that has fallen into Groupthink perceives those who dissent as being adversarial, even downright evil. Indeed, it may perceive that those who do not agree as whole heartedly as they should agree are actually adversaries or, (those key words that comes up in Groupthink environments,) traitors or spies.

I have a Jewish friend who has tried, in the past, to understand the culture of Fundamentalism. I’ve learned to warn him: “Okay. this difference is going to seem incredibly small to you, but to us, it’s huge. Okay?”

“Okay,” he says, and prepares himself to be mystified. The difference between Calvinism and the Dispensational view of salvation held by so much of Fundamentalism astounds him: not that people differ, but that our differences turn into such a knock-down drag-out fight here in the religion of brotherly love. The differences over mode of baptism astounds him as well: how can groups that both say that only the blood of Christ is efficacious about salvation actually care then about dunking, pouring, or sprinkling? He doesn’t get it.

But that’s Groupthink: the unanimity of the group is so essential that there are no small disagreements. Every disagreement is huge. And furthermore, anybody who disagrees with “Fearless Leader” is evil and must be excluded or silenced.

Paranoia and Persecution
The famous “100 percenter” buttons that Jack Hyles passed out 20 years ago is probably the best example of groupthink paranoia that I can cite. Being 100 percent loyal to Hyles, never questioning him, never doubting him, was prominently touted as a Christian virtue. Typical of their culture, First Baptist of Hammond now ignores that episode in its history, or, when confronted with artifacts (extant 100 percenter buttons), the current administration just dismisses it as a minor fad, a stunt at pastor’s school for laughs.

But Fundamentalism hasn’t cornered the market on Groupthink. It was once pointed out to me by an advocate for victims of clergy abuse that the very fact that Fundamentalists could like some of what I write is proof enough that I am sending the wrong message. I didn’t even answer that one. But that was also Groupthink paranoia at its apex.

In any group where such radical unanimity is required and embraced, the group will commit errors in its decision making processes. First and foremost, it will persecute and silence the wrong people. Many of us have heard about how Jim Vineyard of Windsor Hills Baptist would set his sites on some lonely newcomer (male) to the congregation and would then single him out for practical jokes and then pressure him over probably being gay. Vineyard’s homophobia is the stuff of legends. Nobody in the church stood up to him, or if they did, they were simply thrown out, with nobody standing up for them. That’s Groupthink.

Where you see purges, accusations of disloyalty, or a search for spies going on, you are seeing Groupthink in action. It can happen in any type of group: a church, a Fundamentalist fellowship, a victim’s advocacy group, a web board, a club. It’s always wrong; it’s always bad, and it’s always harmful.

I hope to write more of this later.
===============================================

Other Essays in this series:
Groupthink: Part 1

Groupthink: Part 3
Groupthink: Part 4

This entry was posted on Friday, July 15th, 2016 at 12:13 am and is filed under Groupthink. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.
Recommended article from FiveFilters.org: Most Labour MPs in the UK Are Revolting.

JHedzWorlD

The Danger of Groupthink Part 2: Unanimity and Paranoia #JHedzWorlD