Alliance Driven Groupthink on Planet Bob

[Qaianna]

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?

Well, if it's credible, and you're as bad as you say 'we' are, then..well..look what happenned, the ones who were treated bad got so upset a huge war broke out. A lot of Karma says folks who act that way should get attacked and 'taken down a peg' I think is the most polite version I've seen.

I think most of the concern is that the 'Karma' side is acting in ways that they state they object to. Which of course is a rather basic concern for us should they win.

As ssomeone else mentioned, many people do feel more comfortable with a hierarchy system, and knowing their place in it. Not a lot of upward mobility, but limit the downward and you're likely to get people to come along. Which can also help build up the groupthink--especially when one group can point to another and say 'They represent ruin'. And BOTH sides were doing this one.

I actually would like a change in favour of more respect given, even to enemies. I'm just not optimistic. Of course, it'd help if I start getting the 'it's all in good fun' vibe to work for me. That's a work decades in progress, tho

[fenrir]

I am a member of an alliance that is affiliated with the NPO. Reading this topic, I personally can't help but think this. Even if the Karma Allied Alliances come together and defeat the NPO, will they not just take over in order to 'direct' the new way of things. With NPO defeated and a mere shell of former role, will anarchy be the way of rule then? Or will members of the Karma alliances come over to keep the power within themselves? I have read many documents of past events, past wars, pass alterations of power. From the time of the Roman Republic to her Empire and absolve, to Chinese history of the three kingdoms, to Japan, the wars of the West and East, as well as power struggles within today's standard...

Form all of that, I can say, no. Eventually, with all good intent, Karma will be the forerunner of a new dynasty of leaders who will command over the Cybernations. It happens even today. I can cite Romans, England, China, Japan, Russia, USA... All people will eventually resort back to the rule of a single group or person, despite what is done to go against it.

The Romans had a de'facto group before the fall of the Republic known as the Second Triumvirate. They were the true leaders of Rome and the ones who were most recognized. With their rule, Rome was prospering, until one became suspicious of the others. Another became to weak so the other two took over. The two were normally compromised with the third so arguments and aggression mounted until finally one, with the support of the vast majority and the other with law came to blows. The one was defeated leaving only a single man to help guide the way after all had been said and done after a Civil War... But if you become a leader by violent means, by war, your end will be the same unless you can keep people from killing you, because the moment you absolve your power, the remnants of the old, of the ones who disagree, and the ones who want power will destroy you. So, he ruled to keep order and peace... this evolved into an empire, after having fraught to retain a Republic from anarchy.

Communism has be used before in the past where a group of people will rise up against those who were rulers. They killed, murdered, destroyed, and burned their own people because of anger and jealousy of what those people had and they had not. When the old order was destroyed, who lead? The people for a time... but even then, some people wanted more, to have something more then their brother. So, they worked hard, became a figure to rally behind. When you have something, you will fight to retain it. If you have a house, you wouldn't want someone to come and take it from you, but you would fight... If you had money, you wouldn't want some one to take it either. IF I had an A in a school class, and I achieved it by working hard, and long with honesty and integrity, I wouldn't want to give half of it to the F student who slept in class, who destroyed equipment and mouthed off to the teacher. Why should I give half my grade to raise his F to a C and lower mine to a C? No, I would fight to retain that power, as would a person who achieved power, or a group of people who had just taken out a former power. They don't want to give that up because if you do, then that would change nothing... So you must take the power equal to that of whom you just defeated in order to change... A paradoxal line of thought, wouldn't you say? In order to protect you from them, I have to become them; In order to become them, I need to act as them.

USA 'tried' to be bilateral, to remove those lines that divided Rep from Demo... But that leads to argument and no work can be done. Thus, since one side had more power, then they could just say silence and it would be so. If you have the power to silence someone, then what more do you need? Nothing, whatever said is what ever goes. As long as there is disagreement, a thirst for power, or a 'need' to retain the power for 'protection', these cycles will happen again and again. After oppression/long rule by one group, the other fights back and overthrows it, same will happen because they both think they are doing what is right. Both are blinded by the idea that they need to do this in order to be free... but inevitably they will fall into the same cycle.

Cybernations is no different. Wither it be a month or three years, the face remains that eventually some alliance of people will take power in order to retain it... then they will keep it in order to remain protected, then a group of people will call out against it and be fought by those in power, and a new war will begin.

True, group-thought will only help aid this, creating divisions of those who think they are right and the other side is wrong. I am not an Imperialist, nor am I some person that is following my Alliance blindly into battle. My wish is to protect my brothers in the UPN, who are involved in the war. We honor our promise to the NPO because otherwise, who are we? Are we to just turn our backs on our friends, whom we enjoyed great peace with and who have helped us? Are we to abandon them at their time of need? They are our friends, and we protect our friends because they had helped us. True, they are militant, imperialist, and have done many thing disagreeable, but so has every alliance, and every nation. Neutrals, peace, war, and aggressors, they have all watched or stand by as some take the easy path. Many would say that Karma will be deference, that it offers a better tomorrow, but I have seen the way Karma fights... Same as the NPO would... Aggressive, same as the NPO... Militant, same as the NPO. Karma offers surrender, but is that not a call for people to submit to the Karma rule? Imperialistic.

Worded differently, but the fact is same. If NPO remains, nothing will change. If Karma wins, then a new age will come, but under the command of powerful Karma Alliances... Power will remain powerful, and nothing will change.

[RobertFitzy]

There is group think in every alliance and coalition,

I fall into it alot, just look at my change in personality and attitude towered the NPO from my time in DT over to Polaris.

[Qaianna]

There is group think in every alliance and coalition,

I fall into it alot, just look at my change in personality and attitude towered the NPO from my time in DT over to Polaris.

Hasn't the New Polar Order itself had a few adjustments in its opinion of the New Pacific Order? I'm a little curious how quickly those changes, if they are to the extent of groupthink as noted here, came about.

[KingEsus]

*snip*

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.

*snip*

-BigKat-

Wow, very interesting post.

However becuase of point 6 and a fear of points 5 and 8 i am unable to comment on the relevance of this theory on my allainces' own thinking.

[Kzoppistan]

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 ...

The current state of affairs was inevitable and this dance will continue until the end of humanity. One person's opinion is another's evidence of narrow-mindedness. While the supposed "abuse" by the largest power has been the flashpoint of the current hostilities, as it always will be, it is nothing more than a thinly veiled grab at power, of which this motivation is largely obscured in the minds of the actors. Even those who truly think they are fighting against certain actions perpetrated by those in power will, ironically, find themselves having to use those same actions if they wish to secure their newly gained spot in the hierarchy.

While Janis used the term in a negative sense, groupthink is actually the highest form of socializing. Every social system must have a balance between conformity and independent thinkers. Conformity provides stability; too much of it breeds stagnation. Independence provides adaptability but too much of it destabilizes the system.

Will anything really change? No. Only in an individual sense, but not as a whole. The style will change, the substance will not. Some people will lose, some people will win, and they'll continue to think they are masters of their own fate when in fact they are dancing to the socio-biological puppet strings known as the will to power.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[General Specific]

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-

Nail on the head... I just posted this (link here) in response to another thread and I feel it also applies here.

The day we realize we are nation leaders and not alliance soldiers and act accordingly will be a great one.

[adhambek]

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.

There is a huge ocean between the thinking of different groups who play CN. To deny this is to deny the nose on your face. It's self evident to anyone who isn't trying to push propaganda to win a war. You judge people by their actions, no one is claiming to be perfect and there is no comparison. And Gremlins haven't turned anyone into tech farms, forced people to disband, or appointed viceroys. What did we do instead? Agree to fight with VE when we were 40 members with one MDP vs. the entire initiative because we thought it was the right thing to do. Yes. Is this the same mentality as forcing the disbanding of online communities, and turning people into tech farms in your mind?

Try and maintain some perspective and logic rather than carry on in this nihilistic self defeating illogical line.

I think the truth is that everyone has changed mentality, people forget you used to be only able to post hails on the public forms or you risked being attacked in game. Posting a critical post was grounds for war. I think that would be rather hard to enforce now. So be just a little bit thankful for what others have fought and given you.

Edited April 29, 2009 by adhambek

[erikz]

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.

1. Where did FOK ever force to disband an alliance?;

2. Where did FOK ever enforce a viceroy upon an alliance?;

3. Where did FOK ever sentence anyone to EZI?;

4. Where did FOK ever bully people into giving or turning an evilz person in because FOK was bigger?

The list could go on and on. I think I've made my point: the current alliances attacking NPO are in no way similar nor will they ever be. Over @ the FOK family there's the Dutch culture of openness and friendship, not of some vague ideology which you can bend every which way seems best at a particular moment in time.

[brass]

I do not believe that alliances will no longer try to gain strength.

I DO believe that alliances will shy away from gaining Power by eliminating others that have the nerve to question them.

[Cobalt]

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?

My thoughts exactly. It seems the NPO Tune has changed from "we're not evil" to "you'll be just as evil as we are!" - an admission of guilt if I ever saw one.

[Dochartaigh]

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.

Are you seriously trying to state that MK helped establish the Hegemony????????????

FOK and Gremlins had a small hand in it but both also withdrew from said Hegemony on their own.

As for Karma and the Hegemony, many in Karma were tied to those now in the Hegemony side. As for the mentalities of the Karma alliances, not many truly fit succinctly into the description one uses to describe the Hegemony alliances.