Jump to content

Talk:Groupthink

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zilong Wang (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rmilenagarcia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saaharmiri.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious text

[edit]

The last two paragraphs, which appear to be tacked on to the article, are hard to understand. Please clarify.

  • "the level of attractiveness of group members is the most prominent factor in causing poor decision-making."
[Uhhh is this saying good looking people make poor decisions??]
  • "the basic characteristics of groupthink ... are the result of a special kind of mnemonic encoding"
[Ummm our memories influence how we indulge in groupthink??]

Thanks – DavidMack (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbour reasoning

[edit]

The section on Pearl Harbour concludes with "At the end of the day, the leading officers at Pearl Harbor reinforced each other's feeling of invulnerability and it is the reason why the United States was defenseless against Japan's attacks." I think that this is inadequately cited, and something about just reads weirdly. The conclusion is badly supported and doesn't have much in the way of reasoning. Anyone got any ideas for improvement? 140.200.7.162 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

groupthink and narcissism

[edit]

i think that groupthink is just a manifestation of narcissism or more specifically group narcissism. But narcissism doesnt even get a mention here. Narcissists create and impose their own narcissistic cultures on others with their own rules which gullible sheeple blindly conform to. Another aspect is peer pressure.--Penbat (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of controversy where there should be some

[edit]

The implication of the term is that what is called thinking is inextricably linked with being an individual, the term has no force without the implication that a group cannot think. However this is not established. because what is called thinking is less than clear itself. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont properly understand what you are saying but ref my previous comment i think groups are often controlled by a single narcissistic leader who makes the rules.--Penbat (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your complaint would seem to be a special (possibly simplistic, unerudite) special case. Your variant I take it has it that because a group cannot think, a single thinker must come to exercise the function and somehow that always results in a cult of personality or whatever ("human nature" I presume). I take it in particular that you are not referring to a group equivalent of the psychological concept of narcissism which becomes focused on a single individual who expresses the simple minded concept of that term himself as a character. Cause that would be whack. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see that it is not. First "groupthink" is not a concept on a par with "group narcissism" as defined by Fromm, but rather a popularly originated term referring to a lack of critical thinking in individuals in organizations. I wasn't referring to your thread but to the subject of the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janis quotes

[edit]

Janis is quoted twice here, and both quotes are exactly the same. Seems to clutter the intro, so I think it should be taken out of the intro and remain where it is in the body. 70.225.139.227 (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Janis' quote is the only thing worthwhile on the whole page. To say the page is a "crap" page of questionable value is to over-value it.184.7.110.25 (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to agree that the repeated use of Janis quotes and concepts does seem to be clutter. I would recommend removing it from the intro as previously suggested. Secondly it is not necessary to list the 8 main symptoms of groupthink in both the History section as well as the Symptoms sections. Since the concepts are not historical they should be removed from that section. Angiez628 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

I don't have the source handy, but in the quote in the last section, I would think "... emphasis on intense-high status group cohesion... " should be "... emphasis on intense high-status group cohesion... " Reelrt (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Example?

[edit]

The intro says that groupthink is "a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion" without mentioning what the first one is. What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.15.210 (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete reference

[edit]

One of the footnotes mentions Myers, but there is no full citation. I assume this is one of David Myers' textbooks, but we need the full details of the book. Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education

[edit]

See this edit: [1]. The Chronicle of Higher Education is of course not a primary source.Miradre (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. A single brief secondary source still doesn't present enough sources to merit an entire section devoted to propagating your POV. aprock (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A single sentence is hardly undue. Other areas also receive a section. The sources are WP:RS. I will add more. Please do not delete well-sourced material even if it does not fit with a particular POV.Miradre (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You're the one running from article to article trying to push a single POV, not me. aprock (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have followed me to numerous articles you have never edited before and objected to my edits. So any accusations of POV would apply as well to you. I see you have no actual arguments against inclusion of a single sentence in this article.Miradre (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is above. Your willful disregard of it is irrelevant. Your accusations of POV pushing are nothing less than hypocritical. And if you feel like you need to continue accusing me of pushing a POV, by all means bring it to a noticeboard. Otherwise, discuss the objections that have already been forwarded. aprock (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source. New York Times: [2]Miradre (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, economists were not experts in groupthink. You're confusing colorful language with reliable sourcing. aprock (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing that the NYT is not a WP:RS? Miradre (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the article was co-authored by a sociologist.Miradre (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is yet another secondary source: [3] Miradre (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another article about what economists think about psychology. Thanks for nothing. aprock (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Charlotta Stern Stern is a sociologist. Not an economist.Miradre (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another source. Washington Post this time: [4] Miradre (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* A source quoting a conservative think tank. Your continued misrepresentation of sources here is tiresome. These all look like great sources for Higher education in the United States. Why don't you take your crusade back there for a while. aprock (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A conservative think thank is of course not automatically excluded. I have mentioned numerous other sources and research arguing for the same. All of these sources mention groupthink as a cause for the liberal overrepresentation. Here is yet another: [5]. As such ample material have been presented for a brief mention in this article.Miradre (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you've used google to find yet another source that includes the word "groupthink" in the body of the article. Let me know when you find an article that is actually about groupthink, as opposed to just throwing around the term loosely. Cheers. aprock (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what policies you are referring to? Could you link to them and give quotes for whatever you are claiming? Most of the secondary sources refer to academic studies about groupthink which are certainly primarily about the topic. All the sources certainly support the claim that groupthink is one proposed explanation for the liberal overrepresentation. A such a sentence in this article is certainly justified.Miradre (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might read WP:COMMON. Using a source about one thing (liberal bias) to justify inclusion of content in an article about another thing (groupthink) makes no sense. Unfortunately for your efforts at pushing your POV, it seems that your google searchers are finding very few sources about groupthink. aprock (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot find any policies supporting your deletions so you cite WP:COMMON? All the sources cite groupthink as a possible cause for the liberal overrepresentation in higher education.Miradre (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If common sense isn't something that holds any currency with you, the discussion is through. You are free to seek out a third opinion if you like (see WP:3O). aprock (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it is common sense to mention liberal overrepresenation in higher education as a possible area where groupthink is possible in the groupthink article since numerous sources state this. Hopefully adding the numerous sources to the article will convince you.Miradre (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, until you find an article about groupthink you're likely to get nowhere. Finding articles which use the term loosely a single time aren't going to cut it. aprock (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what policy are you citing? Quote and link, please. There is certainly no policy that one is only allowed to cite sources with certain words in the title or something similar. All the secondary sources refer to primary sources dealing with groupthink in higher education as reason for liberal overrepresentation.Miradre (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can also look at for example this article title "Liberal 'Groupthink' Puts Professors at Odds With Most Americans, Report Says[6] Miradre (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, touting of a self published primary source written by people who aren't trained in a related field. It looks like you're going to have to seek out that third opinion. I'm through sifting through your misrepresentations. aprock (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that they are not trained for the research they are doing? Source please. "Self-published" is dubious to material produced by an organization. Is material from Greenpeace or the Democratic Party prohibited? Notability is established by use in secondary sources.Miradre (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that they are not trained for the research they are doing? Source please. The source? "About the authors", page 82 of the report. Sometimes it helps to read the sources being discussed. aprock (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See nothing making them unsuitable. This is of course also only one report. I have cited numerous other sources all stating that groupthink is one possible cause of the liberal overrepresenation in higher education.Miradre (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See nothing making them unsuitable. Yes, your inability to wield common sense has been repeatedly demonstrated. aprock (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no explanation for why they should be unsuitable and regardless such opinions are OR unless you have a sourced criticism. I repeat that this is just one of numerous sources.Miradre (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've tried to bow out of this silliness several times. This will be my final comment until you can get an outside opinion. There is just no reason for me to go around and around with someone who clearly has no regard for common sense, to the point of saying as much on the talk page. Good luck. fin. aprock (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I will make a final attempt by providing all the numerous sources in a citation. If this does not convince you we will have to try something else.Miradre (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outside opinion here: I'm satisfied with Miradre's sourcing and the content should be included. Trying to dimiss this with WP:COMMON isn't going to work. Right about now your argument seems to be based on WP:IDONTLIKE. – Lionel (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionel, Which source would you say makes the best case for inclusion? aprock (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groupthink Sources

[edit]

Here are the sources:

Miradre (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comments
  • first source is a self published report from a libertarian think tank
  • the second source discusses a self published report from a Jewish research center
  • the third source quotes the economist who wrote the first source
  • the fourth source is an Op-Ed written by the author of the first source
  • the fifth source isn't about groupthink
  • the sixth source isn't about groupthink
So, what you have here are two self published reports by special interest institutes, some minor secondary sources mentioning them, an op-ed by one of the authors, and a couple of articles that use the word groupthink in a non-academic manner. I appreciate that these are the sort of sources that you value, but they are clearly undue for this article. As noted above, some of these sources may be appropriate for other articles, notably one directly dealing with left/right bias. aprock (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be included, opinions should be notable and we should be able to explain their degree of acceptance. The views on academia appear to be WP:FRINGE. TFD (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reports from organizations are not necessarily unreliable. Or do we exclude reports by Greenpeace or the Democratic party automatically? Notability established in secondary sources. Aprock misleads regarding the first source which is written by both an economist and a sociologist. New York Times and Washington Post are of course excellent secondary sources and not "minor". Both the fifth and the sixth sources mentions groupthink as an explanation for liberal overrepresentation in higher education, there is no requirement in a policy that a claim should be the only focus in a source.Miradre (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first source it has also appeared in a peer-reviewed journal: The Independent Review, Spring 2009.[7]Miradre (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is how they describe themselves, but they publish articles that mainstream academic journals would not. (Hence the complaint about "groupthink" in academia.) I do not see that the opinions expressed in the article have any significance. If the Greenpeace or Democratic Party websites posted an article about groupthink in some organization, we probably would not include it here either. Please see WP:WEIGHT. RS is also an issue if we use the article as a primary source for the author's opinions. TFD (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"they publish articles that mainstream academic journals would not." Any source for that claim? The New York Times, Washington Post, and the Boston Globe are of course excellent WP:RS. As is the Chronicle of Higher Education. EducationNews looks good also.Miradre (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not an issue of rs but of WP:WEIGHT. Why do you think that this opinion is so important it should be mentioned in the article. Can you please provide a source that explains the degree of acceptance this view has received. TFD (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The views are mentioned in major newspapers and specialized newspapers for this area. Wikipedia does of course not aim to to establish the "truth" on an issue. NPOV means all significant view should be mentioned, not just some single "accepted" view.Miradre (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can show that it has gained acceptance, as opposed to merely having been reported, it cannot be considered a significant view. TFD (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy requirement of having to prove "acceptance". Only significance. A view reported in major newspapers as well as academic studies is significant.Miradre (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been reported in any academic studies and has received only trivial newspaper coverage. Any serious article about Groupthink would ignore it. If it has no acceptance then it has no significance. TFD (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times, Washington Post, and the Boston Globe are of course excellent WP:RS. As is the Chronicle of Higher Education. EducationNews looks good also. This view has been published in peer-reviewed journals: "Groupthink in Academia: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid." Daniel B. Klein, Charlotta Stern, The Independent Review, Spring 2009.Miradre (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IOW it has received minimal notice including none in the academic press and has had zero influence on the subject. If you find a recent book about Groupthink that mentions the article and we could consider including it. TFD (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. I have already cited one peer-reviewed article. It has in turn been cited by many other academic works. I fail to see how you can claim minimal notice when this view is mentioned in many major newspapers as well as specialized newspaper for eduction.Miradre (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the groupthink theory has been argued in several other papers by Klein and Stern.[8][9] Miradre (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited zero peer-reviewed articles and zero cites in other academic works. Yes thinktanks do a fantastic job of getting fringe views covered in mainstream media, but you have no shown any serious attention. Even for the fringe that may accept this article, it is much more likely to influence their view of academia than of their view of groupthink theory. TFD (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zero? I have now cited 3 peer-reviewed papers: [10][11][12]. As well as several major newspapers and specialized education newspapers.Miradre (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, even those in the academic literature who give other explanations for the liberal overrepresentation discuss the groupthink theory.Miradre (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see the theory discussed in academic papers by critics who refer to some of the peer-reviewed papers above, see for example: [13]Miradre (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is yet another source. A literature review of groupthink theory applications: [14]. Miradre (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Your final source is good, because it is an academic journal. Here is what it says, "Other applications ...the groupthink concept continues to see broad application.... [It] has been applied to juries and hockey teams. Ko described how Chinese culture affects groupthink. Klein and Stern (2009) drew an interesting parallel between groupthink and academia". (Rose, p. 47) Essentially it has been ignored - it merits one sentence in a 20 page review of the literature and is described as "interesting". TFD (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned also at page 48 in Table 7 "Applications of Groupthink": "Academia breeding form of groupthink." So it is mentioned twice and accepted as an application. No criticism. I have also still cited 3 other peer-reviewed sources: [15][16][17]. As well as several major newspapers and special newspapers for education.Miradre (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The table lists all the "other applications" mentioned on p. 47. The essay is trivial to the subject of "groupthink". Klein and Stern are mentioned not because they contributed to our understanding of groupthink, but as a curiosity. None of the other articles that cite them are about groupthink. TFD (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The literature review of Groupthink is just that. There is no claim that the application of the theory to academia is "trivial" or a "curiosity". There is no criticism regarding the application to academia. It is described as one application among many in table 7 which is called "Applications of Groupthink".
There is no requirement that "Groupthink" must appear in the title in order to use it as a source. All the 3 peer-reviewed articles I listed argue that Groupthink is one explanation for the liberal overrepresentation in higher education. As do the major newspaper and specialized newspaper for education I have already cited.Miradre (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The literature review explains the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the literature review criticizes the research or states that it is insignificant. It is mentioned as one application among many others.Miradre (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the literature review criticizes the research because it is insignificant. TFD (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not stated either. Please avoid OR and unsourced claims.Miradre (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have to determine weight, that is not OR. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." How prominent do you think a paper is that warrants a one sentence mention in a 20 page review of the literature? Do you think that means this one page article should devote any attention to it? TFD (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not only mentioned once. It gets about the same coverage as other applications of groupthink theory.Miradre (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, peer-reviewed papers and newspapers are of course reliable sources of which I have presented numerous.Miradre (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may talk about it with other editors at NPOVN.[18] Note that being reliably sourced and deserving weight are two different things. I can find a reliable source for example for the fact I graduated high school, but it does not mean it belongs in this article. TFD (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will add all the sources to the article in the hope of convincing those doubting.Miradre (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Miradre (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still only a passing mention. This has been discussed above in detail by both Aprock and TFD. There is no reason to discuss this interminably. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously not just a passing mention when it has been discussed in academic papers, major newspapers, and specialized education newspapers. I have asked for outside opinions at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Groupthink_in_higher_education.Miradre (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are still totally unconvincing to me. I agree with Aprock and The Four Deuces. Sorry, Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fear you may oppose just because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I have asked for outside opinions.Miradre (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The reasons given by Aprock and TFD do not need to be repeated (please read them again). Your posting on WP:NPOVN is the second posting about this article as TFD already posted (see above). Sorry, Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see his extremely biased and inadequate presentation of the sources we are discussing. He only mentions a single source! The new section presents them correctly.Miradre (talk)

Criticisms and recent development section

[edit]

This article seems to be a copy-paste of an undergraduate level literature review. There are a lot of great sources cited, but the presentation is poor.

Suggestions: -condense the article: remove the excessive sub-topics and synthesize the data presented in them with each other to improve readability -fix the numerous citation errors (missing sources, improper citation) -eliminate weasel words -rewrite the article using a less conversational tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndividualHerd (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resource

[edit]

The Rise of the New Groupthink OPINION by SUSAN CAIN published NYT January 13, 2012 99.181.142.231 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improving the article - Include citations

[edit]

The "Park's meta-analysis" sub-section under Empirical findings section provides examples of some of the works of other articles but doesn’t provide the citation to the work and study conducted by the authors - Manz and Sims (1982) ; Fodor and Smith (1982) ; Callaway, Marriot, and Esser (1985); Leana (1985). Some external citations that can be included in the reference section to cite the "Park's meta-analysis" sub-section are:

  • Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P . 1982. The potential for “groupthink” in autonomous work groups. Human Relations, 35(9): 773-784
  • Fodor, Eugene M.; Smith, Terry, Jan 1982, The power motive as an influence on group decision making, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 42(1), 178-185. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.178
  • Callaway, Michael R.; Marriott, Richard G.; Esser, James K., Oct 1985, Effects of dominance on group decision making: Toward a stress-reduction explanation of groupthink, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 49(4), 949-952. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.949
  • Carrie R. Leana, A Partial Test of Janis' Groupthink Model: Effects of Group Cohesiveness and Leader Behavior on Defective Decision Making, 1985, Journal of Management, vol. 11 no. 1 5-18. doi: 10.1177/014920638501100102 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poornimacvd (talk • contribs) 17:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation to this Shawna Echols (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)section.[reply]

Bay of Pigs Invasion

[edit]

The Bay of Pigs Invasion has a detailed section in Case Studies, but is also discussed in Symptoms, History, Preventions, Politics and Reexamination. Would it be better to revise and condense it's use? Angiez628 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People more likely to restate information others already know

[edit]

A Google search for 

groupthink experiment "others already know"

brings up interesting sources or experiments... someone with spare time could read some of experiments and mention them in this article. 60.8.123.103 (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groupthink in 12 Angry Men

[edit]

Groupthink in 12 Angry Men

<youtube>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DkI2I0W5i8</youtube>

2:45-8:45

Application Points: 1) Task-oriented Group: In 12 Angry Men it is clear that the group of twelve men are a task-oriented group in that they are the jury of a trial and must at the end of their interactions come to complete a task: the task the decision of whether or not the boy in the case is guilty or not guilty.

2) Group Cohesiveness: This first assumption of groupthink is the group’s sense of unity (cohesiveness). These twelve men obtain the duty as a jury to come to a consensus over the trial of a boy who is claimed to have murdered his father. Between the men there are small interactions that imply a unified bond amongst the men who are all working towards the ultimate decision. The cohesiveness can be seen through the gum offering, small talk (temperature in the court room), and more small talk about the locking of the door.

3) Self-appointed Mindguard: The single man who chooses to vote not guilty provides background information of the boy. He refers to the influences the boy may have from growing up in the slums and the absence of a mother presence. However a member from the jury acts as a self-appointed mindguard by counteracting with the statement, “what’s that got to do with the price of coffee?”. Therefore he is throwing away the previous information that may interfere with the group’s main interest of coming to an agreement.

4) Pressures on Dissenters: In the clip the rest of the jury immediately bombards the single man who votes not guilty. The pressure is felt from the very beginning as he nervously stands near the window biting his fingernails and is made completely apparent when he raises his hand slowly. As he lowers his hand he itches his face; this gesture implies that he is aware that the single motion of raising his hand against the majority is about to cause uproar of upheaval.

5) Out-group Stereotypes: Within the first ten minutes of 12 Angry Men one man in particular makes his opinion very clear, however it becomes apparent that his opinion holds a bias as well. He refers the boy in the case to a larger group of “them” when stating “I’ve been among them all of my life. You can’t believe a word they say”. It is clear that his opinion is not from fact but from personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.40.215 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overview: Example Clarification

[edit]

The fourth paragraph of the introduction/summary might include too much information, or represent a biased view. "...as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour such as psychiatry.[2]"

Perhaps the "such as psychiatry" should be removed (just from this sentence) and used as an example elsewhere? Alternatively (or better yet) move this citation to follow "behaviour" and include a direct citation for the psychiatry link. (Because now I'm curious, and I'm sure others are too.)

174.130.133.127 (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It looks like someone inserted "such as psychiatry" a couple weeks ago without anybody noticing. Undone. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Reorganize Content

[edit]

Another student and I have been studying GroupThink as a project for a class. We think this article has some really good content, but that its organization is a little confusing.

We suggest incorporating some of the "Recent Developments" up into the "History" section so that readers don't get through the entire article and then find that some aspects of Groupthink have been rethought in recent years. Alternatively, we could combine sections 5 and 7 since they both deal with attempts to evaluate evidence. We would also like to incorporate a visual diagram of Janis's model.

We'd love to hear what you think! LauraC1360 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)LauraC1360[reply]

Hi there LauraC1360 and friend. I definitely agree that the structure of the article is sub-par. And yes, a late in the article 'recent developments' section is a problem. Not only because a quick glance of at article would leave people with the impression that groupthink is more warmly accepted in academic circles than it is (as you allude to), but also because sections of that nature are magnets for academic promotion and spam.
I would suggest a structure along the lines of 'the model' -> 'evidence' -> 'history', with recent developments woven into the evidence section. I am not wedded to that though, and what you describe also seems like an improvement. Of course, it is all in the execution. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LauraC1360 (talk · contribs), I reverted here (followup note here) mostly out of concern for your class's additions not adhering to aspects of WP:Manual of Style (MOS); for example, the title of the article should be bolded; see MOS:BOLD. And the headings should be in sentence case, not in title case (unless it's an official title, such as the name of a book); see MOS:HEAD. Do you mind explaining how the class's edits are improvements? If they are improvements overall, then I don't mind being reverted on the matter. Cleanup can happen afterward. U3964057 (Andrew), Barek, AlbinoFerret and Albany NY, any take on this matter? And, LauraC1360, as seen in the edit history, these are all editors who have edited the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cant remember editing this page, but I am a member of the WikiProject Citation cleanup, so its possible I added a citation in the past. I always think its best to go with WP guidelines whenever possible like WP:MOS. But I am pretty uninvolved with the article. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in, AlbinoFerret. I pinged you via WP:Echo above because, seeing this edit you made, I felt that you might be involved with the article or have it on your WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember now that you showed me that. I have an idea of groupthink from some psychology classes I once took. There is a big groupthink problem on one of my favourite articles, Electronic cigarette. I came here to refresh my memory. I saw a weasel word (kind of funny considering my name here) and put a tag on it. Still being uninvolved, its a good idea to follow WP:MOS unless there are great reasons not to. AlbinoFerret 20:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Flyer22 (talk. LauraC1360 and I posted suggestions for the page's revisions above about a week ago and since we received no major objections since, we have been working systematically to implement structural changes to several of the sections. Namely, we thought the article, while the content was fine, lacked a coherent and cohesive organization. Our main revisions have involved cleaning up some of the prose, rewording the lead to better reflect groupthink's entire body of research, reexamining the Janis model and its contentions, and so forth. We have just begun to implement the changes and will then move on to clean up! Thanks for the feedback; we'll take a closer look at the style guide. HaleyB3 (talk)HaleyB3 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've fixed all the style issues you've mentioned, Flyer22 (talk. Thank you for letting us know. In regards to the history section, we felt that it would easier to navigate the page if the section title instead highlighted Janis's contributions. Please let us know any thoughts about the article as it stands now. Thanks! Flyer22 (talk)
Hi LauraC1360. I have once again reverted your large scale edits to the groupthink article. There are still multiple avoidable formatting errors. Moreover, your edits have also removed valuable content without justification, introduced a number of uncited claims, and have created a problematic structure. Overall it is not clear that the edits are an improvement to the article.
You are welcome to discuss these points here or ask for further clarification. I would suggest, however, that you not try to adopt such large scale changes in one fell swoop. Please consider instead making changes incrementally. Such an approach is more manageable for you (e.g. it will be easier for you to pick up on minor errors) and will make it easier for other editors to consider the merits of you changes with greater granularity (i.e. it is less likely to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater). Of course, I am happy to hear the thoughts of others editors. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are the edits that U3964057 (Andrew) are referring to. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

Find more about and start a section on etymology. Its obviously from Newspeak, though. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Groupthink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Groupthink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Groupthink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 U.S. Presidential Election

[edit]

While it is certainly true that opposing political parties or blocs of voters may hold viewpoints that others may criticize as seemingly irrational or as the product of one side's propaganda, this may merely demonstrate confirmation bias. The term Groupthink should be reserved for the more interesting -- and potentially dangerous -- cases where the practice is seen among groups of ostensibly objective observers such as news reporters, pollsters, military and government bureaucracies, etc. Mbstone (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My inclusion of a reference to Groupthink by Clifton Wilcox was flagged because some bot recognized Xlibris as a possible vanity publisher. It appears that Dr. Wilcox is a recognized authority and the referenced book is widely available in university library collections. Mbstone (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Groupthink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Victoria's Peer Review

One topic that I think it would be very important to add to this Wikipedia page is Social Media. The section History mentions groupthink in social media, more specific in Twitter. The reason for that is because I think that when it comes to social media we can see how different groupthink can be expressed.

There’s this article that I thought it was very interesting on how social media can influence and express ideas which I think it can relate to groupthink. When using social media groupthink happens even without the main leader. We can see this when looking at Instagram, it’s easy to see that people are always trying to make sure that others agree to what they are suggesting. Like posting a picture and getting likes, the constant need to agree, which a lot of times can overcome people own opinion.

--Vk1993 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC) [1][reply]

References

  1. ^ Thompson, Robin L. “Radicalization and the Use of Social Media.” Scholar Commons, scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol4/iss4/9/?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol4/iss4/9&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.

Really Bad Aspect Of "Causes" Section

[edit]

The way the "causes" section is written, entirely quoting somebody called Janis, could not have been better designed to enforce groupthink upon that section. How ironical!

An important cause, which I have personally witnessed many times, is that the members of the group have undergone the same training, or have read the same book about the subject. I have no idea whether the person called Janis said this, so I would need to make a big edit to the section in order to include that VERY IMPORTANT reason. New Thought (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History section

[edit]

Irving Janis pioneered the initial research on the groupthink theory. He does not cite Whyte, but coined the term by analogy with "doublethink" and similar terms that were part of the newspeak vocabulary in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell

How can Janis have 'coined it' if his work was published 1971, while Whyte was 1952? --Chumchum7 (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Should be "coined the term a second time" or similar. Kookaburra17 07:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Term for devaluation / erosion of morality due to fear because an ever larger part of a group is participating anyway (in e.g. stoning someone)

[edit]

Is there a term for the phenomenon where, the more people are doing a bad thing, the less bad it seems? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Groupthink&oldid=1216541778"