Jump to content

Alliance Driven Groupthink on Planet Bob


Elric
 Share

Recommended Posts

A certain Katatonic social psychologist named Irving Janis coined a term called groupthink. Although his research was not derived specifically from studying alliance interactions and the implications for individual nation leaders within alliances, I feel that his findings provide an exellent framework for an explanation of the past and present geo-political situation here on Planet Bob. Also, it speaks to the future. I am afraid that we may be doomed to repeat similar dogmatic, narrow-mindedness that has led to the current state of nations here on Planet Bob unless we reflect on how we got to where we are, as well as where we, as a human polity, wish to go in the future. I hope that this subject will elicit constructive dialogue about our collective future.

According to Janis, groupthink occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”. Alliances affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. Janis would argue that an alliance 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 (or access for group members) to decision making.

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

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.

Does any of this sound remotely familiar? Self-censorship leads to a high level of internal conflict. Unfortunatley, in a repressive atmosphere, these psychological pressures are turned into groupthink energy and leads individuals to loudly and blindly support their individual alliances.

Our forums, where world leaders gather to interact in a public fashion, are the most obvious example of such groupthink. Conflicts emerge, then sound-bites develop, and the deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” of Bob groupthink leads somehow to the establishment of some new irrefutable "logic" that dictates all thinking on the planet. Dissenters and free-thinkers are ridiculed, or even in extreme situations, attacked. Groupthink leads to an establishment of rules and procedures for all to follow. Those who question or disagree become pariahs.

What can we all do, moving forward, to rid Planet Bob of such groupthink behavior? Let us examine this phenomenon from individual, alliance, and aliance bloc perspectives and share views that can help eradicate group think from our world.

I do not seek to establish a world that is devoid of conflict. That would be simply another (and possibly even more sinister) form of groupthink. All free-thinking, intelligent individuals will eventually disagree with each other on some issue or issues. That is inevitable unless we are all groupthink zombies. What I seek is a world in which freedom exists to be, quite simply,...free.

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

-BigKat-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as there one single and uncontested power at the top (a problem we will hopefully take care of for a little while) then freedom is something that will be hard to attain.

Also first D:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayOvfEnnay,

You think that by taking out the New Pacific Order you're eliminating the problem but in the end, both sides of this conflict were once united in smashing those who truly thought differently. What remains is a homogeneous mentality. The only reason this war is even raging now is that the mentality everyone on Bob shares is one that cannot allow everyone to coexist peacefully without one being in absolute control. NPO's term up on the throne has simply come to an end; they're in the process of being flushed down. Perhaps I shouldn't jump to conclusions before the war ends, though. Wouldn't it be funny if they won and all of "Karma" got completely annihilated for their treachery?

Edited by Tom Litler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as there one single and uncontested power at the top (a problem we will hopefully take care of for a little while) then freedom is something that will be hard to attain.

Also first D:

I'm really not sure what you expect to happen when the evil NPO and all her allies are vanquished forever. Me, I believe that just one thing will change in terms of the CN status quo: The names.

-Bama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure what you expect to happen when the evil NPO and all her allies are vanquished forever. Me, I believe that just one thing will change in terms of the CN status quo: The names.

-Bama

Thank you.

I rarely agree with you because your posts are often characteristic of the word that your alliance acronym spells out. However, this time is one such rare occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayOvfEnnay,

You think that by taking out the New Pacific Order you're eliminating the problem but in the end, both sides of this conflict were once united in smashing those who truly thought differently. What remains is a homogeneous mentality. The only reason this war is even raging now is that the mentality everyone on Bob shares is one that cannot allow everyone to coexist peacefully without one being in absolute control. NPO's term up on the throne has simply come to an end; they're in the process of being flushed down. Perhaps I shouldn't jump to conclusions before the war ends, though. Wouldn't it be funny if they won and all of "Karma" got completely annihilated for their treachery?

Tom Litler,

That's not at all what I was saying. What I meant by my post was not in reference to any one specific entity, just the fact that if there is one hegemon at the top or one large uncontested power that such corruption and for lack of a better word "evil" would occur with freedom being harder to achieve. Besides that alliances like Gramlins, or FOK, or even MK would be far better at the top for the CN community just because of their mentalities in comparison to NPO. This is just my opinion dude, but honestly I'm not sure I'm so far off. :x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm arguing that the mentalities of alliances like FOK, MK, or Gremlins aren't much different from those of what has so dramatically been termed the "hegemony", which ironically enough the aforementioned alliances had some hand in creating at one point or another, through the destruction of those who really did think differently than the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that it's unlikely we'll really ever see another NPO. Nobody did it better, and nobody did it in such a jackboot, calloused fashion as the NPO. They forgot to hit "autosum" on their Excel spreadsheets this time, however, and the aggravation of the Cyberverse is pouring out upon them.

I can't see Sparta or MK obtaining the same status. Then again, maybe I've just lived with the NPO looking down for too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that it's unlikely we'll really ever see another NPO. Nobody did it better, and nobody did it in such a jackboot, calloused fashion as the NPO. They forgot to hit "autosum" on their Excel spreadsheets this time, however, and the aggravation of the Cyberverse is pouring out upon them.

I can't see Sparta or MK obtaining the same status. Then again, maybe I've just lived with the NPO looking down for too long.

There are others waiting to take our place.

Edited by James Dahl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are others waiting to take our place.

I'd have to agree there. Given all the bile I've seen vomited from both 'sides', I dare say that it will take some doing for Karma, assuming it wins, to not fall under the same trenda that it blames the New Pacific Order for.

I'll actually float this question here: Given that Pacifica's allies have, prior to their war declarations, informed the Order of their opinions on their handling of Ordo Verde (via cancellations of individual treaties), would it be safe to say that a fractured Continuum/One Vision victory be a greater step to avoid 'groupthink' than if a unified 'Karma' were to do so (and possibly give the 'Hegemony' something to rally around)? Note I'm not talking about the probability of victory (that seems up in the air at the moment), just the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hardly surprising that Continuum stooges lack the imagination to see the world run by anything but a single power bloc.

Karma isn't going to take over the world. We're simply going to toss you off the throne. The world isn't going to be unipolar or even bipolar (though it may coalesce towards that eventually). This war will leave the world fractious and exciting. For the former-hegemony as well.

You're welcome.

Edited by Sal Paradise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hardly surprising that Continuum stooges lack the imagination to see the world run by anything but a single power bloc.

Karma isn't going to take over the world. We're simply going to toss you off the throne. The world isn't going to be unipolar or even bipolar (though it may coalesce towards that eventually). This war will leave the world fractious and exciting. For the former-hegemony as well.

You're welcome.

Excuse me for being a 'stooge', but there will always be one power that will attempt to be the strongest. That is fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me for being a 'stooge', but there will always be one power that will attempt to be the strongest. That is fact.

I don't know that it's an absolute truth, but you're probably right that it will continue to be the case. That's not contrary to his assertion at all. In fact, the struggle for dominance is what will be interesting - there (hopefully) won't be a definitively dominating power for a long while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me for being a 'stooge', but there will always be one power that will attempt to be the strongest. That is fact.

Bravo for missing the point. You are excused because it was completely expected. One day I hope they'll teach reading comprehension at the NPO academy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this, the new Francoism?

It is an attempt to answer this question by these means:

What can we all do, moving forward, to rid Planet Bob of such groupthink behavior? Let us examine this phenomenon from individual, alliance, and aliance bloc perspectives and share views that can help eradicate group think from our world.

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

-BigKat-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure what you expect to happen when the evil NPO and all her allies are vanquished forever. Me, I believe that just one thing will change in terms of the CN status quo: The names.

-Bama

Thank you.

I rarely agree with you because your posts are often characteristic of the word that your alliance acronym spells out. However, this time is one such rare occasion.

I am interested to know if you are both satisfied and comfortable with the status quo, as Bama calls it. Do you believe that any change is necessary? If so, what can individual nation leaders do to erradicate groupthink from Digiterra?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested to know if you are both satisfied and comfortable with the status quo, as Bama calls it. Do you believe that any change is necessary? If so, what can individual nation leaders do to erradicate groupthink from Digiterra?

I'm bored and tired of unipolar CN, as everyone is. I'm not an NPO hater, but I want to see some competition. Up til the leadup to this war, we hadn't really had a bipolar CN since UJW. What I want to see is both sides remain somewhat intact. I want a long term rivalry, including several more world wars. Sadly, I don't think I'll get my wish, as both sides are too determined to dismantle one another.

-Bama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A certain Katatonic social psychologist named Irving Janis coined a term called groupthink.

...text....

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

-BigKat-

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Have already shared this article with friends.

Good read.

CRAP, I can't say any of this stuff truthfully without it sounding cliche now! ^^;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that it's an absolute truth, but you're probably right that it will continue to be the case. That's not contrary to his assertion at all. In fact, the struggle for dominance is what will be interesting - there (hopefully) won't be a definitively dominating power for a long while.

This breaks down when one faction does start succeeding. Plus, honestly, unless I see a sharp turnaround in the tenor of Karma posts, I really won't be able to believe that things will change. A lot of it seems pretty groupthink already, and the war's not over yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This breaks down when one faction does start succeeding. Plus, honestly, unless I see a sharp turnaround in the tenor of Karma posts, I really won't be able to believe that things will change. A lot of it seems pretty groupthink already, and the war's not over yet.

Well, yes. Obviously it breaks down when a faction rises to dominance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look forward to and enjoy the political atmosphere until that happens.

And it astonishes me that your side is really crying that ours side seems as bad as yours, or that if we win nothing will change. How can you rally around that, even if it were credible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human beings gravitate towards heirachical relationship structures, probably going back to our ape troupe days.

Collectivism, while obviously superior philosophically, is philosophy fighting a losing battle against biology.

So, whoever wins the war, there will be a striving for the number one seat. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling themselves.

Nearer to topic, yes I'm fascinated by group think on CN too, the way strangers from all over the world come to form/join groups and automatically begin to follow orders and place themselves somewhere in the heirachy.

Edited by Hymenbreach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see Sparta or MK obtaining the same status. Then again, maybe I've just lived with the NPO looking down for too long.

Aww, thank you, that's about the nicest thing somebody had to say about us.

On topic, let's see if I pass the checklist:

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.

1) Meh, yes and no, I'm a bit realistic.

2) See no. 1.

3) My morality lies in the believe of a good scrap. Right and wrong is all semantics, all that matters is will it be good fight or just a curbstomp.

4) Why yes, it's easier to stereotype, but then again there are people on the other side that time and time happens to prove me wrong.

5) Obligatory yes, since I think I'm on a groupthink.

6) Oh, obviously.

7) I belong to an oligarchy-meritocratic alliance, what do you think?

8) Uh, no actually, it's usually the reverse,... leaders protect the group from blah blah.

How deep am I in a groupthink?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...