slopfront
Reddit, read-only. No JavaScript. No cookies. No tracking.
preferences

Is groupthink a double edged sword?

4 points · submitted Mar 2022 by u/Burrnerr2021 · Culture & Society · archived

In the sense that group think allows groups of people affected by something to together do something about it (like a social issue).

However it seems like it makes one averse to any nuance on a particular issue because of either personal experience or group experience. Often times is reinforced by the group one is a part of. Kinda like “no we’re absolutely right on this, full stop “.

Also for anyone group member who dissents with nuance instantly gets flagged as being of the opposition or accused of enabling said opposition.

If nuance is in fact the reality of the situation and not what the groupthink makes people believe reality is, then how is this productive to anything really. All of this assuming that reality on some if not all issues lie somewhere in the middle and that groupthink does in fact kill nuance.

Hope this makes sense lol. Just trying to understand how our society and its various groups currently operate.

5 comments · 83% upvoted · other discussions

comments

slide_into_my_BM 3 points · Mar 2022

I think group think is not inherently bad but it’s very susceptible to corruption from echo chambers.

Similar to how we all agree democracy is good yet it is also highly susceptible to corruption by wealth.

I’m paraphrasing because I don’t remember the quote but Sun Tsu said something along the lines of your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness. Just like your greatest weakness is also your greatest strength. So if you have a strong large army that army is slow and requires a lot of resources to sustain. Likewise if your army is small and weak it’s highly mobile and requires fewer resources to sustain it. Weakness and strength are just 2 sides of the same coin

ShackintheWood 2 points · Mar 2022

People can do things about issues without groupthink...In fact it is better if you have differing ideas and views.

argo2708 1 points · Mar 2022

Very much so.

There's strength in group identity and shared ideas. It allows depth of inquiry and collaboration.

But when the group stops allowing contradictory ideas to be entertained, a sort of intellectual arms race develops in which members compete to create and accept more and more extreme and country intuitive ideas. Groups which started with sound aims lose their way.

BLM started with a sound idea: black people are disproportionately victims of police violence and this should stop. That'd an idea that can be questioned and acted on. But they stopped questioning themselves and before long they were looting, demanding reparations from white people and accusing absolutely everyone of being racists.

Feminism: equality for women became teaching men not to rape and gender quotas in high paid jobs.

Trans rights: the right of trans people to identify how they wanted became an imagined right to complete in women's sports and to force everyone else to use new language and ideas they may not agree with.

Incels: communities to seek support for crippling loneliness and isolation became hating women for imagined crimes.

This will always happen when a group stops questioning their own ideas and admitting new ones for consideration.

[deleted] 2 points · Mar 2022

But they stopped questioning themselves and before long they were looting, demanding reparations from white people and accusing absolutely everyone of being racists.

Sure they did, Grandpa, back to your chair now for some more Fox News, I'll make you some soup.

asusthrowaway123 1 points · Mar 2022

In the sense that group think allows groups of people affected by something to together do something about it (like a social issue).

Can you give a specific example where groupthink is positive? The way I see it, it is a single-edged sword pointing at yourself, limiting your personal and intellectual growth...