R
rlg94086
Guest
What country do you live in?
What is your “in-group?” Or, are you superior in that way and only other people are involved in group-think?
- Status
What is your “in-group?” Or, are you superior in that way and only other people are involved in group-think?
G
gilliam
Guest
It is not uncommon for people to dig in on a position when challenged. It has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else thinks, and I don’t think it has anything to do with the concept known popularly as “groupthink”
Here is the Wikipedia definition:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.
The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. While this often causes groupthink to be portrayed in a negative light, because it can suppress independent thought, groupthink under certain contexts can also help expedite decisions and improve efficiency.citation needed] As a social science model, groupthink has an enormous reach and influences literature in the fields of communications, political science, social psychology, management, organizational theory, and information technology.[1]
The majority of the initial research on groupthink was performed by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University. His original definition of the term was, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1972).[2] Since Janis’s work, other studies have attempted to reformulate his groupthink model. 'T Hart (1998) [3] developed a concept of groupthink as “collective optimism and collective avoidance,” while McCauley (1989) [4] pointed to the impact of conformity and compliance pressures on groupthink decisions.
E
estesbob
Guest
God save us from the “intelllectual communities in the Western world”
H
Holly3278
Guest
I would vote for Palin over Obama any day!
G
gilliam
Guest
Yale? Oxford? Cambridge? A&M?
H
hilaretenebris
Guest
If I were old enough to vote, I would totally vote for Sarah Palin! 
Unfortunately, I’ll be about two months too young to vote in the 2012 election.
Unfortunately, I’ll be about two months too young to vote in the 2012 election.
P
Persuader
Guest
So, I probably identify with some liberalism, understood as a European phenomen (it is somewhat different from American liberals). This makes me more likely to accept claims and positions furthered by people sympathetic to these kinds of positions. That means that I need to be extra-careful when evaluating.
PS: I’m Scandinavian.
There is a distinction between groupthink, in-group-out-group bias or ingroup/loyalty etc. (what I called group-think for brevity). There is no agreed upon definitions of these concepts, which creates some confusion. What I am talking about is the psychological mechanisms at work between these groups. Now, the religious right in the US uses religion as a strong identifier, and has been isolated from the broader conversations in the intellectual communities. This is, in my opinion, a tragedy. Not only for the religious right, but also for those communities. The polarization in US politics is related to this. And I am not saying the religious right is entirely to blame. I just think it is very bad for the world and the US itself.
This is relevant because I think the support of Bachmann, Palin etc., would only be possible in an environment where intellectuals have little influence. These candidates are not intellectuals. I don’t think they have read or understood political philosophy, economics or any other serious academic discipline. Do they even know that the godfather of modern libertarianism (Robert Nozick) was an unbeliever? That Ayn Rand despised religion? Have they read the other side? Do they know about John Rawls? Have they read “A Theory of Justice”?
And what about climate change? Do they know that 97-98% of the scientists publishing most in the field, support the IPCC conclusions? Do they know that evolution is a consensus position in science? If they do, why do they reject it despite their own ignorance? It is irresponsible.
R
rlg94086
Guest
So, you are a Scandinavian liberal. Well, then, it is completely understandable that you would have little understanding of the broad spectrum of views held by American conservatives. And, it certainly explains your superior attitude. Let me guess…college-age? And, being Scandinavian, non-religious?
R
rlg94086
Guest
I just love how you consider “religious” and “intellectuals” as opposites. No bias there.
Is science by consensus what they teach in Europe? Here in the US, you actually have to prove your point. If a scientist has a theory contrary to the consensus (e.g. the world is round, not flat), they are often ridiculed by the majority. However, the truth can eventually be accepted, when the majority scientists are able to escape their strongly-held convictions and actually look at the contrary argument as a scientist.
BTW…regarding “climate change,” I’m not an expert, and I don’t take a strong view either way. The “deniers” evidence and arguments are convincing and give me enough reasonable doubt to keep me from believing we should invest billions on unproven solutions proposed by the “consensus” group-thinkers to a problem that may or may not be fixable.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
I have to say, this is a very valid point. The intellectual vacuum in the modern American right is a problem they need to deal with. Whereas a Rousseau or a Voltaire would be answered by an Edmund Burke, or a Josef De Maistre, and a John Rawls by a Peter Novick, too many modern conservatives (in America, at least) seem content to abdicate intellectuality altogether. This is a phenomenon present among American liberals too, but it is especially a conservative sentiment, especially with the very populist Tea Party.
When conservatives wonder why the intelligentsia is largely devoid of conservatives, I think they have themselves as much to blame as the left, especially when they often seek to de-glorify and denigrate academic professions and even regular teachers, while ilodizing businessmen. The shame of it isn’t that there couldn’t be an intellectual conservatism; there was, at one point, but that legacy has largely been tossed away. As one who does not sympathize with the liberal wolrdview, I find these developments nonetheless drive me further and further away from American style conservatism.
Actually, scientific consensus in the US is also that global warming is real. Argue as you may that they only believe this from conviction, I can say that this isn’t true. It may be true of Al Gore, of the activists, and the like, but it is not true of the scientists. I go to a major research university where the fcus is very much science and engineering, and I spend a great deal of time around these people, and therefore I can only shake my head claims so often made on these forums about how they all lack integrity and are just rabid liberals trying to foist their views on others, that they are sonehow “authoritarian” and “elitist.” None of these accusations are true for the overwhelming majority of scientists who think global warming is real. If I were to walk up to one of them on the street and say ‘I don’t believe in global warming, prove it to me’ most would jump at the opportunity to discuss it and make their case. And I have met professors and students in the sciences across the political spectrum who think global warming is real. So if one wants to make a scientific case that global warming isn’t real or that human beings don’t effect it, fine, but the ad hominem (I’m not referring to you especially) that a lack of intellectual integrity or honesty is the explanation for why so many scientists believe in “the global warming hoax” a claim I don’t think is an ‘argument’ that is worthy of a response.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
In all fairness, it is not as though American conservatives have any interest in understanding the broad spectrum of views held by European liberals, or even American liberals for that matter.
I can’t speal for Persuader, but I frequently bring up the same point with rather the opposite point of what you say. That is, that much (perhaps most) of the intellectual groundwork of modern American conservative ideology was laid by these nonbelievers and atheists. So how can someone rejectr the supposed secularist liberalism and its ‘intellectual elite’ while worshipping at the feet of secularist libertarians? I personally think the worldview of Rand and Nozick as well should be rejected just as firmly. But often on these boards one will see people quoting the arguments of, say, a secularist, soclially liberal, proi-choice neoconservative like Charles Krauthammer like he’s ‘one of us’ because he happens to be conservative for foreign policy reasons. And sometimes the enemies trying to batter down the doors are no less dangerous than the ones you’ve already let into the fortress. (I love war analogies, so I can’t be a liberal, right?
)
R
rlg94086
Guest
Sure. But, I don’t know of a lot of Americans that frequent European sites to tell them about their group-think.
Try reading William F Buckley, Jr.I can’t speal for Persuader, but I frequently bring up the same point with rather the opposite point of what you say. That is, that much (perhaps most) of the intellectual groundwork of modern American conservative ideology was laid by these nonbelievers and atheists. So how can someone rejectr the supposed secularist liberalism and its ‘intellectual elite’ while worshipping at the feet of secularist libertarians? I personally think the worldview of Rand and Nozick as well should be rejected just as firmly. But often on these boards one will see people quoting the arguments of, say, a secularist, soclially liberal, proi-choice neoconservative like Charles Krauthammer like he’s ‘one of us’ because he happens to be conservative for foreign policy reasons. And sometimes the enemies trying to batter down the doors are no less dangerous than the ones you’ve already let into the fortress. (I love war analogies, so I can’t be a liberal, right?
R
RACJ
Guest
Code:
Not even Obama can destroy everything we hold dear in 2 1/2 years, Ras. Don't forget, even the USSR needed to keep 2% of its population armed and well-heeled (relativelyspeaking) to keep everyone else in line. So, not EVERYONE will be poor given 5 1/2 more years of the Obama nightmare. :blush: Rob
P.S. I am sure that the CEO of GM resigned "voluntarily". :D
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Wanna place wager on everyone being poor in 5.5 years of Obama wins?Not even Obama can destroy everything we hold dear in 2 1/2 years, Ras. Don’t forget, even the USSR needed to keep 2% of its population armed and well-heeled (relativelyspeaking) to keep everyone else in line. So, not EVERYONE will be poor given 5 1/2 more years of the Obama nightmare.Rob
P.S. I am sure that the CEO of GM resigned “voluntarily”.
And my guess is the CEO of GM resigned because he wasn’t doing a very good job. I would’ve rather the state let the company go down, but a socialist would’ve appropriated the plants and put the workers in charge of everything, rather than giving give them lots ofmoney with the hope of keeping it afloat until the next election. We all know GM is on its way out, it;s only a matter of time, but if it goes out during Obama’s watch, give the historical and symbolic significance of GM to Americans. It’s a political hot potato, and what was done was probably done more for sentimental reasons than economic reasons. There’s GM, and there’re countless other major companies that went under that didn’t get bailed out because they didn’t have a name like GM.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
It didn’t take 2 and a half years for the Russians to find out Lenin was a socialist. Obama on the other hand is a moderate capitalist (and socialists I’ve come across don’t like him much better than Bush). I have to believe that their definition of socialism is probably fairly reliable.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
How tough do you think it would be to get elected running around making socialist campaign promises? Other than flat out telling a plumber you will confiscate his money when you feel he has reached a predetermined point of success to allow another person to be given a chance to reach that same point.
They don’t like him because he won’t flat out say what he believes, but he know he’d never made it past Hillary running on a pure socialist platform.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
I still find the presumption that he is a crypto-socialist to be rather baseless. Most of it based on his affiliation with some guys when he was in college or a community organizer. I’m hardly inclined to judge a man so much based on what he did in his youth. My father is a right wing conservative, but even he voted for a Democrat in his first presidential election and unabshedly admits that he joined the Army reserves so he wouldn’t have to go to Vietnam. Some of his friends were big hippies back then, and are now almost invariably far right conservatives. Even if Obama was a socialist or anarchist or whatever 25 years ago, I see no reason he didn’t take the standard path and veer back to the mainstream of being a standard liberal democrat,especially given that his policies are liberal democratic in nature, not socialist. I’ll tel lyou what though, if he gets reelected and then starts collectivizing the farms and opening Gulags and sends me and my middle class bourgeois family out to one of them, then I’ll mail you $100 bucks as compensation for the forewarning before they seize all my family’s assets.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Many people campaigning for the Democrats last time around made it quite clear that what there inspriaton was some form of Western European or Scandinavian type of system. This is what is commonly referred to as a form of socialism.
To the extent that Obama has not yet been able to deliver on that is to the extent that many are disappointed in him.
To the extent that Obama has not yet been able to deliver on that is to the extent that many are disappointed in him.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Today’s standard liberal democrat is quickly becoming tomorrows socialist. They have advocated for everything from housing as a constitutional right and even more recently I believe they have discussed taking over the foreclosed homes to rent out.I still find the presumption that he is a crypto-socialist to be rather baseless. Most of it based on his affiliation with some guys when he was in college or a community organizer. I’m hardly inclined to judge a man so much based on what he did in his youth. My father is a right wing conservative, but even he voted for a Democrat in his first presidential election and unabshedly admits that he joined the Army reserves so he wouldn’t have to go to Vietnam. Some of his friends were big hippies back then, and are now almost invariably far right conservatives. Even if Obama was a socialist or anarchist or whatever 25 years ago, I see no reason he didn’t take the standard path and veer back to the mainstream of being a standard liberal democrat,especially given that his policies are liberal democratic in nature, not socialist. I’ll tel lyou what though, if he gets reelected and then starts collectivizing the farms and opening Gulags and sends me and my middle class bourgeois family out to one of them, then I’ll mail you $100 bucks as compensation for the forewarning before they seize all my family’s assets.
Obama’s said in his own words, not 25 years ago, but when he was in the state senate. That the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, it says what the government can not do but does not say what the government MUST do on YOUR behalf.
In other words, he believes that the government should provide for you what you can not provide for yourself. One of these days, maybe someone will realize that the federal government can not provide for someone without first taking it from someone else. And that which is confiscated from someone else will eventually stop being produced.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Speaking of Gulags, the man said during his campaign that he wanted to fund a national police force as strong as our own military…I’ll tel lyou what though, if he gets reelected and then starts collectivizing the farms and opening Gulags and sends me and my middle class bourgeois family out to one of them, then I’ll mail you $100 bucks as compensation for the forewarning before they seize all my family’s assets.
What do you suspect he felt we needed a nationalized police force with M16A4’s, M249 SAW, tanks, stealth bombers, rocket launchers, land mines…and on and on.
Wonder what he would have called the Nationalized Police Force special force team members…
Obamaburgers???
- Status