Authority within groups

[Fred56]

We generally give greater credence to the opinion of a group than that of any individual. We assign greater authority or status to an idea or theory that a group agrees with, rather than accepting without question any individual's theories or observations.

 

This seems to be contrary to the idea of elected leadership and military authoritism and heirarchy. So how come we accept both of the latter, but still question (our own) individual observation or conclusion?

[Pangloss]

Hmm, I'm not sure. What do the rest of you guys think??

[YT2095]

probably applicable for a Democracy, not so much for an Enlightened Dictatorship

[Mr Skeptic]

Hmm, I'm not sure. What do the rest of you guys think??

 

Ha ha, good one.

 

A group has more resources and less individual bias (in general at least), so it would make sense to treat their opinion as more valuable than that of a single individual. And, of course, the fact that a group is composed of individuals might have something to do with it too.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure I can go along with that.......

 

(grin) Okay okay, on a more serious note -- yes we do often seem to listen to empower groups with authority more than individuals. There's the "herd mentality" effect at work, as well as the "mob psychology" effect, which is a little different. I think these things have negative as well as positive connotations, as you suggest in the OP. Not only is it contrary to the notion of representative government, but it's also sometimes just downright dangerous ("Somebody get a rope!").

 

Have you read Malcolm Gladwell? In "The Tipping Point" he has some interesting insights along these lines, focusing more on what kinds of individuals we DO pay attention to. I thought it was interesting.

[Sisyphus]

I'd say it's inevitable that group mentality wins out, just because of the principle of "might is right." Pretty much any individual's power ultimately derives from the consent of a large group of people, and so on some level all power is achieved by persuading groups. Some, like elected officials, make this more obvious, and some, like military leadership, are less so, but I think the principle still holds, albeit removed a couple steps. Why do underlings obey the general?

 

That's why it does happen, I think, but luckily it happens to usually be a good thing. "Mob mentality" is the dark side, but consensus is a crucial part of all sorts of endeavors, as many eyes watching and many minds independently considering the same subject means the bad is less likely to slip through, and the good can be synthesized together. Peer-review science journals harness this principle, for example. Wikipedia demonstrates its effectiveness in its purest and least controlled state.

[Saryctos]

I really feel it has a lot to do with the fact that people generally pass blame and elevate themselves over one another.

 

If a group makes a mistake, you can have a way to make it look as though it wasn't your fault.

 

If a single person has an idea which competes with your own, you would instantly start thinking of ways they could be wrong, or 'how they didn't do it right'; trying to diminish the ideals to make your own superior. Where if it's a group you may feel that someone else has already taken the time to question a few of the same doubts. And like the above, you don't feel like you have to commit to it, since you can go along with an idea untill it's not popular and distance yourself from it if necissary*.

[Fred56]

The other thread I started with this topic in mind appears to have totally perplexed some others in this forum. I got back an immediate negative sort of "what the hell are you talking about -this looks totally illogical" response. Can't really figure, but what the hey, I gave a bit back, and accused at least one of being 'stoopid', now I've been accused of 'ad hominem" rather than 'ad crassendo' attack. I don't tolerate thick people too well, I'm afraid, especially when they seem to be just prevaricating or pretending not to understand my question. But, as if it matters a toss...

 

I would say that part of the reason an individual is, or group of individuals from among a group are selected as 'leaders' is due to the group perception that the subset is better at observing and making decisions, possibly. Leadership appears to be something related to the desire to abrogate responsibility, and therefore accept or surrender your individual observational and decisive ability.

[Pangloss]

Fred, I wasn't the one who moved that thread, but I did see it, and I didn't understand it either. So far as I can see (in the removed thread holding area) it contains no accusation of stupidity, just a request for clarification.

 

If you have a problem with a moderator action it's generally a better idea to take it up with a moderator than to bring it up in public. We're human beings too, and we don't like being embarassed in public any more than I'm sure you do. Thanks.

[Mr Skeptic]

The other thread I started with this topic in mind appears to have totally perplexed some others in this forum. I got back an immediate negative sort of "what the hell are you talking about -this looks totally illogical" response.

 

To be honest, that seems like a common trend with your threads.

 

Can't really figure, but what the hey, I gave a bit back, and accused at least one of being 'stoopid', now I've been accused of 'ad hominem" rather than 'ad crassendo' attack.

 

Possibly because no one has heard of an 'ad crassendo' attack.

 

I don't tolerate thick people too well, I'm afraid,

 

You're not the only one.

 

especially when they seem to be just prevaricating or pretending not to understand my question.

 

Especially so. Actually, I don't like the ones who repeatedly fail to understand a question whether or not they are pretending.

[Fred56]

'crassendo' is from the same Latin root for the English word 'crass' or 'crassness', btw. Used the once in this thread...

Surely not all of the threads I've started, or posts I've made have perplexed everyone? (ignore this, I don't really give it much thought myself -this could be part of the 'problem', though)

[Fred56]

"Government - agency that comes into power, claiming to solve all society's ills, then refuses to on the grounds it will put them out of a job."

 

-hypography.com

[Reaper]

Especially so. Actually, I don't like the ones who repeatedly fail to understand a question whether or not they are pretending.

 

 

Only if the question is clear, concise, and/or to the point though. If it is vague or ambiguous, as Fred's recent threads have been, then one can't complain about it.

[iNow]

"Government - agency that comes into power, claiming to solve all society's ills, then refuses to on the grounds it will put them out of a job."

 

-hypography.com

 

Fred - Hypography is another science forum. Can you give an exact link from where your definition came? It appears you took this out of a user post, and not some accepted word source or dictionary. Can you please advise more accurately your source?

[Fred56]

It came from a jokes thread. It isn't anyone's "scientific" opinion or political leaning (well, maybe). Sorry, it arrived in my email without anyone's name on it...

-the thread's in the 'watercooler' section.

 

"I would say that part of the reason an individual is, or group of individuals from a group are selected as 'leaders', is due to the group perception that the subset is better at observing and making decisions, possibly. Leadership appears to be something related to the desire to abrogate responsibility, and therefore accept or surrender your individual observational and decisive ability."

 

Can we return to the long and winding (and vague and ambiguous) path about what individual/group authority 'means'? Not that I'm expecting a whole lot of anything in particular...

[mooeypoo]

My my.. we were just studying Janis' "GROUPTHINK" theory in class the other day.

 

VERY Fascinating theory, and I recommend the read, specifically his analysis of the decisions that were taking in the incident of "The Bay of Pigs" (as a bad decision, caused by what he defines as "groupthink") versus the second, better managed incident, of the "Cuba Missile Crisis".

 

His theory is that within the psychological interaction of a group, people can be subjected to methods and pressures that would make them not express themselves fully, become arrogant (something like 'as a group, we agree, therefore we must be right') and encourage unanimity.

 

The symptoms for groupthink are (abbrev):

Symptoms of Groupthink

 

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.

((source: http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm))

 

He's explaining it quite convincingly, and it's really fascinating to read.

 

 

~moo

[john5746]

We generally give greater credence to the opinion of a group than that of any individual. We assign greater authority or status to an idea or theory that a group agrees with, rather than accepting without question any individual's theories or observations.

 

This seems to be contrary to the idea of elected leadership and military authoritism and heirarchy. So how come we accept both of the latter, but still question (our own) individual observation or conclusion?

 

I think your mixing up ideas/theory with management/execution. For example, a President probably will not come up with big policy ideas on his own. He has a team, each of whom consults with others, not to mention the legislative branch. A leader doesn't need to be the smartest person with the best ideas. A leader needs to get the job done, by chosing and inspiring the right people, being decisive in an emergency, etc.

 

This would be true with the military as well. Planning would be done in the war room with a group, but execution during a battle isn't a time for consensus building. Trust your leaders or your toast(to a point).

[Fred56]

I think your mixing up ideas/theory with management/execution.

Well, the idea is that the word "authority" means "status of observational/decision-making ability". To explain this: if you see something odd-looking up in the sky, what's the first thing you think about? Is it possibly asking someone else if they can see what you can? If so, then what you are doing is placing greater trust (status, authority) in group observation than your single observation.

 

The larger the number of 'agents' who observe (or believe they observe) the same thing, the more status the observation is given (by each individual and thus the group itself). This explains mob behaviour to an extent.

 

People tend to believe what they are told if they also invest a sufficient authority (status, observational ability), in the agent or agency that tells them something. We like to "trust" those we believe have a greater observational ability, and in the decisions they make: doctors, judges, generals, politicians ...(say what?), but not generally street-sweepers, say.

 

This explains the assignation of leadership (elected leaders).

Kings and monarchs used to be elected or selected on their intelligence and "leadership", military skills, and so on (early Roman Kings, for example).

But eventually these "leaders" convinced everyone they were special enough to warrant the exclusion of any other group members from the "leadership"; that they themselves were the best "selectors" of a successor; that they and their progeny (or personal choice in the case of the Roman emperors) were the only available men for the job.

[Fred56]

I had another look at the post this was in; so it all starts with a bit of dangerous thinking, or radicalspeak?

 

Symptoms of Groupthink

 

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

 

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

(brainburping/visionary 'thinking')

 

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

(BeliefSystem B)

 

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

(establishment of BeliefSys B)

 

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

(incorrect filtering or processing -wrong algorithms; B is incorrect function set linguistic/semantic toolkit)

 

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

(feedback and control mechanisms to enhance a 'signal')

 

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

(doctrine -formalisation of B)

 

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

(delusional belief -B doesn't map, except if B is 'upheld': maintained by delusional cycles of inference)

 

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.

(maintenance/control of dogma & doctrinal discursion -co-option of 'agents'; isolation of the 'source')

[mooeypoo]

I had another look at the post this was in; so it all starts with a bit of dangerous thinking, or radicalspeak?

 

Symptoms of Groupthink

 

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

 

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

(brainburping/visionary 'thinking')

 

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

(BeliefSystem B)

 

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

(establishment of BeliefSys B)

 

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

(incorrect filtering or processing -wrong algorithms; B is incorrect function set linguistic/semantic toolkit)

 

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

(feedback and control mechanisms to enhance a 'signal')

 

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

(doctrine -formalisation of B)

 

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

(delusional belief -B doesn't map, except if B is 'upheld': maintained by delusional cycles of inference)

 

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.

(maintenance/control of dogma & doctrinal discursion -co-option of 'agents'; isolation of the 'source')

Yeah I posted that reference before.. we studied this in school.

 

Janis also gives a few tips on how to avoid it; it's very interesting to see its effect, specifically on bodies like the government. In my Political Science class we analyzed "The Bay of Pigs" decisions through the idea of "Groupthink".. very interesting conclusions.

 

~moo