Is AGW another example of groupthink

Hallo Alfie

Banned
Hallo Alfie
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
10,691
In reading and contributing in other posts, a thought came to me. I remember reading some of Janis some years ago and wondered whether the currect AGW phenomenon is another large example of the groupthink phenomenon.

Groupthink occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”. Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.
Click to expand...


It certainly appears to have all the traits - or minor variations therein.

Here are a list of the symptoms as documented and described by Janis in 1972, the numbering is mine:

1/. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

2/. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.

3/. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

4/. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

5/. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.

6/. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.

7/. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

8/. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
Click to expand...


Further he writes

When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them.
Click to expand...


As I say, all the traits seem to be there.

History is littered with examples big and small.
I have seen them in workteams, sports teams, corporate executive, middle management, politics, nations, ideologies and religion.
I have seen some lucky outcomes and many appalling failures.
I have been a player caught up in them and I have been on the outside of them; I have observed them from a place of knowledge and from ignorance, I have been both a leader and a follower.

Have you seen or experienced this?

So, why not AGW?

Any further thoughts, rebuttals, agreement etc?

I have numbered the symptoms and welcome any specific or general examples of each.

I will be extremely interested in any overall examples or comparisons anyone would like to contribute.


AAA
 
Upchurch said:
I guess mostly because there are examples that are counter to all the points that are applicable.
Click to expand...

Let's have them then.
And let's not "guess"

Upchurch said:
(Ethical or moral consequences, for example, are inapplicable to the science itself, only to how people act upon it.)
Click to expand...


We aren't talking about science, we are talking about people within and/or organisations.
 
There's no point in us discussing this. The science on what constitutes groupthink is settled.
 
JimBenArm said:
Yes, it is.
Everyone else in the forum told me to say that.
Click to expand...

lol

Thanks Superchicken, I love your avatar.
Off topic, I still remember all the words to his theme song.

# When you find yourself in danger and your threatened by a stranger when it looks like you will take a lickin' buk buk buk buk, there is someone waiting who will come along and rescue you, just call for Superchicken....#
Click to expand...

Ah, me youth.
 
6/. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
Click to expand...

There is an active and vigorous debate among climate scientists, with a level of animosity between some. But they don't tolerate non-science.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/zorita_goes_for_the_jugular.php

Zorita is a colleague of Storch. Storch was one of the scientists who quit the board of Climate Research after it published Baliyunas and Soon's paper.
 
Upchurch said:
Allow me to rephrase:

What exactly do you think AGW is, if not science?
Click to expand...

I think the OP is clear enough. :rolleyes:
If you want to contribute in a meaningful manner, please do.
Just so you know, I will ignore your transparent attempts at derail from here on, ok.:)
 
6/. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
Click to expand...
There is an active and vigorous debate among climate scientists, with a level of animosity between some. But they don't tolerate non-science.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/zorita_goes_for_the_jugular.php

Zorita is a colleague of Storch. Storch was one of the scientists who quit the board of Climate Research after it published Baliyunas and Soon's paper.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I think the OP is clear enough. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The OP doesn't address what you think AGW is. "A scientific hypothesis based on data" is the obvious answer, but you seem to contradict that when you said:
A.A.Alfie said:
We aren't talking about science, we are talking about people within and/or organisations.
Click to expand...
It's as if you are trying to redefine AGW into a political or social movement and not a science.

So, no. The OP isn't nearly clear enough.


A.A.Alfie said:
Just so you know, I will ignore your transparent attempts at derail from here on, ok.:)
Click to expand...
Ah... who was it that said,
4/. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
Click to expand...
?
 
Yep, its a VAST Left-Wing Conspiracy. (VLWC for short.)

The VLWC was started in Kindergarten when we read children "The Giving Tree" and "The Lorax" and the brainwashing continued through High School and College by teaching them Biology and Physics and *gasp* Evolution. By the time they graduate they will pick up on tiny "Manchurian Candidate" cues in pop songs and the cover art on Playboy to begin whatever "groupthink" project the VLWC has in store today.

Of course VLWC is a fully-owned subsidy of the NWO, and is presided over by a certain cat who we will not name for security reasons.

Now that you know, of course, we will have to "deal" with you.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
As I say, all the traits seem to be there.

History is littered with examples big and small.
I have seen them in workteams, sports teams, corporate executive, middle management, politics, nations, ideologies and religion.
I have seen some lucky outcomes and many appalling failures.
I have been a player caught up in them and I have been on the outside of them; I have observed them from a place of knowledge and from ignorance, I have been both a leader and a follower.

Have you seen or experienced this?

So, why not AGW?

Any further thoughts, rebuttals, agreement etc?
Click to expand...
It's hardly like a religion or ideological movement. And the other side seems to be at least as likely to be groupthink. They get together and have their conferences too.
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom