Group Think – Good or Bad

[Anonymous]

I had this thought while reading the “Then why stay Jewish” post by johndehlin, and not wanting to commit a thread-jacking I decided to start a new one.

Basically, any organized religion has a set of practices associated with it. Some are very strict and some are more open. Jews have a very strict set of practices they follow with a more works based approach to religion, while General Christianity places a more faith based approach and often specific practices or works are not as much a requirement as a show of devotion. I am speaking in very general terms here and realize that in some ways that may over-simplify the argument, but it doesn’t change the fact that these religions have specific practices that their adherents are supposed to live by.

I have heard many a dissaffected Mormon complain about the “Group Think” aspect of the LDS church. The idea that we all need to look the same (white shirts, dress code) not just on Sunday but all week long. The WOW, temple and church attendence, callings, missions, etc. that are supposed to be the outward appearance of our faith and devotion. This is often talked about in the DAMU in a rather negative light. Perhaps because failure to look like we are a good mormon results in being shunned and treated not just like a bad mormon, but a bad person. There is a harsh judgement for not conforming to the pre-conceived idea of what a Mormon is. Even outside the church, others have an idea of what mormons should be and act and will often notice when a person does not conform to the norm. The most disturbing part of this is when people accuse, the leaders of the church of trying to think for us and govern us in all things. I’m not sure this is correct, but that is often the perception.

The article quoted by johndehlin made me think, why is conformity a bad thing? What is wrong with having a group identity? Afterall, the Jews have been doing it for literally milenia. There is something about belonging to a group that can give us encouragement. Like your not alone and there are others out there that are trying to live by the same standards. For the sake of this argument, I don’t want to discuss the merits of those standard, simply that having a group set of standards can be a good thing. It is not that you have to follow them, because you have your agency. But by adopting the standards of a group, you identify with them and become one of them. It can also support you through a crisis of faith.

Isn’t that the struggle that many face? They want to be a part of the group, but don’t necessarily want to accept all of the group standards. Can one be a part of a group and not accept the standards? Or, can a person still be accepted by a group if they don’t want to commit to everything? In the same light, don’t many disaffected mormons exhibit their feeling by not conforming in things. Like wearing a colored shirt to church. It is a small statement of protest. Then again, some feel trapped by the group, and want to leave but the peer pressue to conform holds them.

So the discussion is, when does “group think” go too far and where does it help? And, are “protests” really helpful in making a point about dissaffection?

[Anonymous]

mr_musicman wrote:

So the discussion is, when does “group think” go too far and where does it help? And, are “protests” really helpful in making a point about dissaffection?

Your question goes to the heart of why I resigned from the church. Obviously, in my case, (and in my mind) the “group think” around Prop 8 was devastating. As an example, the day I resigned our ward had stake visitors come to a combined PH/RS third hour and essentially hold a campaign rally/training for Prop 102 (same as Prop 8 but in AZ).

No one spoke up in dissent though apparently there were dissenters. I didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to speak up as I was holding my letter of resignation to give to the bishop at the end of the class/training/rally/whatever.

My “protest” was much more involved but I don’t think it made any point. I have the same question: Are protests helpful?

[Anonymous]

Sorry to double post but I just got this quote from a work email and thought it was fascinating and applied to this thread and probably others and would love to hear comments as it relates to this thread (and any others for that matter). It might not be a new idea to some but it really touched me, spiritually and intellectually.

“In Japan something can be right and wrong at the same time, something may be right in itself but wrong under the circumstances, instead of right / wrong there is the concept of fit, running from poor fit to a very exact fit.”

Edward Debono, I am right you are wrong, 1991

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The article quoted by johndehlin made me think, why is conformity a bad thing? What is wrong with having a group identity?

Nothing wrong at all…in fact, I think as social beings we desire to be a part of a group that shares our values and reaffirms our hope.

Many young people join the military for this reason. Putting on a uniform, you are sacrificing some individuality to be a part of something greater than yourself. In losing yourself, you find yourself.

Your devotion to that group is then tested when you are asked to do something you don’t want to do. Then your test is how much you are willing to sacrifice, and do it anyway, or how much you begin to doubt you want to be a part of a group that would ask you to do more than what you are willing to sacrifice.

Even anarchists team up together and may have secret combinations to go against authority, but are still grouping together with shared values to go against the rules they don’t agree with, only to establish group rules that serve their purposes.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

Your question goes to the heart of why I resigned from the church. Obviously, in my case, (and in my mind) the “group think” around Prop 8 was devastating. As an example, the day I resigned our ward had stake visitors come to a combined PH/RS third hour and essentially hold a campaign rally/training for Prop 102 (same as Prop 8 but in AZ).

Since I never lived and experienced this in CA or AZ, can you elaborate on how the church made you feel you would be a bad mormon if you voted against this? This is very interesting to me.

I think the church felt it important to argue why we should protect marriage, but in the end, everyone makes up their own mind (in theory..I’d like to know more about how they put it into practice).

My wife still doesn’t know I voted for Obama. She said she’d hate me for it if I did, so we agreed I’d keep that to myself, so I voted according to my conscience and kept my vote secret. I don’t feel I’m lying to my wife, only that it doesn’t need to be discussed. It was my personal choice and it is over and done and we all move on.

Is that pretty different from the Prop 8/102 pressures you felt? Hope you don’t mind me asking.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Since I never lived and experienced this in CA or AZ, can you elaborate on how the church made you feel you would be a bad mormon if you voted against this? This is very interesting to me.

It definitely wasn’t that I would be a “bad” mormon (since my questioning of lots of “doctrine” already made me feel branded a “bad” mormon), although I’m sure this was the dilemma for lots of members. (at least the ones I talked with about it)

Rather, it was the choice I felt in my heart: follow Christ or follow the leaders of the church.

My decision to resign was much more a response to the politicizing of religion; I feel deeply the importance of keeping religion out of political public discourse. This separation guarantees religious liberty which is ironic because when religions become active in politics they are actually putting themselves at risk, especially in a representative republican form of government which guarantees individual liberty and sovereignty. Religion impugning on individual sovereignty through the machinations of politics is about as dangerous as it gets (Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, et al).

Thus, I felt morally compelled to resign, and felt empowered by my knowledge that I was following Christ in this action.

As for protecting marriage, there is an option (which jmb elaborated on in an earlier post) that would guarantee both individual and religious liberty. By not choosing this option, the brethren are being cynical, ignorant, duplicitous, bigoted or some combination of these.

Cynical: they know of the option but don’t care.

Ignorant: they don’t know that this is an option.

Duplicitous: they know of this option and they know the doctrine of polygamy is still practiced yet choose to focus on opposing another version of “marriage”.

Bigoted: they know of this option but choose to deny it based on the idea that they feel that homosexuality is a sinful “choice”, therefore the concept of homosexuality makes an individual “bad” or unworthy, similar to the “sinful” choice of miscegenation or the “curse” of the dark skin. Hence, the official church stance of SSA being a type of “curse” or “disability”.

Lastly, this issue was driven home to me after finding out the story of Stuart Matis. http://www.newsweek.com/id/83973

This is an emotional story and, unfortunately, one that is being played out again and again in LDS communities all over the country.

[Anonymous]

“Groupthink” is a natural tendency when a group becomes sedentary and sluggish. When change is introduced or new people are introduced, they challenge the “groupthink.” I’ve never seen the word groupthink used correctly as a positive. I think the qualities some people in the church like that are similar are: loyalty, conservativism, tribalism (us vs. the world), community, conformity, hierarchy, structure and formality. For me, each of these has some positives and negatives. Each can be a strength or a weakness. For example:

Loyalty creates cohesion. But if it goes too far, you get radicalism.

Conservativism creates stability. But if it goes too far, you stop progressing.

Conformity creates unity. But if it goes too far, it creates inauthenticity and stifles self-expression.

Hierarchy creates order. But if it goes too far, you get unrighteous dominion.

Structure creates security. But if it goes too far, it is like a prison.

Formality creates a sense of purpose. But if it goes too far, form overtakes function and erodes meaning.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Birds of a feather flock together.

The challenge, imo, is to recognize where it is important to think alike (very few things but absolutely existent) and where it is not critical (most things) – and then to allow individuality within the group in the vast majority of situations and issues. That’s unnatural, since birds of a feather really do flock together and rocking the boat makes more people sick than happy, so it really is a challenge. When we recognize how biologically ingrained it is (like the example of the anarchists who bond together and form rules of combat – the absolute height of irony), it becomes MUCH easier to quit condemning “group think” and allow for gradual growth and change.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Loyalty creates cohesion. But if it goes too far, you get radicalism.

Conservativism creates stability. But if it goes too far, you stop progressing.

Conformity creates unity. But if it goes too far, it creates inauthenticity and stifles self-expression.

Hierarchy creates order. But if it goes too far, you get unrighteous dominion.

Structure creates security. But if it goes too far, it is like a prison.

Formality creates a sense of purpose. But if it goes too far, form overtakes function and erodes meaning.

This is Great, Hawkgrrrl!! Very well put. Temperance and balance is always needed, which makes life interesting. Just when I think I’m getting stronger spiritually and getting closer to God, I realize I’m getting self-righteous or neglecting my family’s needs, and so I need to be humbled and remember I can’t just follow the flock around at church and be safe. I have to balance my responsibilities.

Sometimes, what starts off good (Conformity or any of those you listed above) slowly turn bad if we don’t keep focused on what everything is based on, the 2 great commandments, Love God and Love your neighbor. It takes constant re-callibration, also called repentance.

[Anonymous]

I think groups over time at all levels of society go through fluctuation in all the dimensions that Hawkgrrrl talked about: Conservative, Loyalty, etc. They are constantly in flux trying to find a balance of all the individuals.

Group Think works really great for those who’s individual “think” closely matches the group. The more correlation, the less stress and dissent for them individually. It isn’t so much of a problem when you join to a casual hobby club. If your goals and views don’t match, no big deal. You change hobbies or find/form another group.

Religion is also a culture. We are born into it or convert. It is a whole way of life. Religions encompass rules about the fundamentals of life, death, procreation, diet, etc. When our individual disposition doesn’t correlate good with the group … that creates a lot of problems for us.

[Anonymous]

I have some fairly strong opinions on this issue. It is near to many of the reasons I have detached myself from a lot of Mormonism. I also think you have mischaracterized “groupthink.” Groupthing isn’t a tendency to conform, it’s a phenomenon that occurs in homogeneous groups. It works by making any dissenting voices seem so improbable that members of the group ignore them, or otherwise think they’re unlikely. That’s why it’s so dangerous.

I recently read a book devoted to this very topic. It is vital to good decision making to have much cognitive diversity, and independence in a group. Here is one of the best quotes from the book:

Quote:

“In part because individual judgment is not accurate enough or consistent enough, cognitive diversity is essential to good decision making. The positive case for diversity, as we’ve seen, is that it expands a group’s set of possible solutions and allows the group to conceptualize problems in novel ways. The negative case for diversity is that diversity makes it easier for a group to make decisions based on fact, rather than on influence, authority, or group allegiance. Homogeneous groups, particularly small ones, are often victims of what the psychologist Irving Janis called “groupthink.” After a detailed study of a series of American foreign-policy fiascoes, including the Bay of Pigs invasion and the failure to anticipate Pearl Harbor, Janis argued that when decision makers are too much alike – in worldview and mind-set – they easily fall prey to groupthink. Homogeneous groups become cohesive more easily than diverse groups, and as they become more cohesive they also become more dependent on the group, more insulated from outside opinions, and therefore more convinced that the group’s judgment on important issues must be right. These kinds of groups, Janis suggested, share an illusion of invulnerability, a willingness to rationalize away possible counterarguments to the group’s position and a conviction that dissent is not useful.

…

The important thing about groupthink is that it works not so much by censoring dissent as by making dissent seem somehow improbable. As the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. put it, “Our meetings took place in a curious atmosphere of assumed consensus.” Even if at first no consensus exists – only the appearance of one – the grouop’s sense of cohesiveness works to turn the appearance into reality, and in doing so helps dissolve whatever doubts members of the group might have. This process obviously works all the more powerfully in situations where the group’s members already share a common mind-set. Because information that might represent a challenge to the conventional wisdom is either excluded or rationalized as obviously mistaken, people come away from discussions with their beliefs reinforced, convinced more than ever that they’re right. Deliberation in a groupthink setting has the disturbing effect not of opening people’s minds but of closing them. In that sense, Janis’s work suggests that the odds of a homogeneous group of people reaching a good decision are slim at best.

One obvious cost of homogeneity is also that it fosters the palpable pressures toward conformity that groups often bring to bear on their members. This seems similar to the problem of groupthink, but it’s actually distinct. When the pressure to conform is at work, a person changes his opinion not because he actually believes something different but because it’s easier to change his opinion than to challenge the group. – James Surowiecki, “The Wisdom of Crowds”

So, is conformity such a bad thing? I think, in general it becomes a bad thing very quickly. Many mentioned points about having a place to belong, and feel part of something higher than oneself. This is important, but is really separate from the groupthink issue. This can be felt by belonging to any group of people, even a cognitively diverse one. This is a bit different than an organization.

Overall, I think organizations in general serve the purpose of gratifying man’s natural tendency to control and manipulate the environment around them. It makes us feel safe, but it uses protection from a perceived threat to accomplish its goals. The foundation for its control, therefore, is fear. Fear is the antithesis of Christ, and love. Organizations do serve some practical purpose, but they so quickly overstep their bounds, and forget about individuality, and cognitive diversity that on the whole, I think they are much more trouble than they are worth. They create far more problems than they solve, IMHO.

I think there is a lot of groupthink in the church. And why wouldn’t there be? It’s not like we’re immune to it. We are, by definition, a homogeneous group. And unless the group actively seeks to preserve the elements of good decision making, and push back against cognitive homogeneity, we will reap all the downfalls. Personally, I think the Brethren have not done a very good job at spearing groupthink, and encouraging independence. Some GAs do emphasize points to help in this regard, but, on the whole, I think they present a unified front of squashing anything that feels like a threat (Sunstone, Dialogue?). I think Prop 8 is a great example of groupthink, especially when the protectmarriage.com propaganda started rolling in. I got a letter just yesterday from this coalition (this is the coalition the church joined). Here is an excerpt:

Quote:

The ProtectMarriage.com Action Fund will continue to make the case to Californians that traditional marriage is a time-honored and divinely inspired institution that has served as the fundamental building block on which human civilization is built. Marriage is an institution that is as much about children as about adults, and if we allow the definition of marriage to be changed to include same-sex couples, there are grave consequences for our children and for all of society.

For me marriage is a relationship, not an institution, and an attempt to make it an institution places something other than the relationship at the forefront. Once again this is the antithesis of Christ/love. Furthermore, note the fear tactics. There are “grave consequences” if SSM is allowed. Yeah, like which ones? Can they demonstrate any of them with anything other than speculation, and comparisons to other states with different laws? Not that I have seen. To me, this coalition is engaged in a war of its own making. And they seem to refuse to see another solution to find peace. Hence we wage war, and each letter I get from them is a call to arms (usually in the form of begging for more money).

From both a decision making standpoint, as well as an individuality standpoint I think conformity is, in general, not a good thing. The benefits of sacrificing oneself to something bigger can be done in healthier ways. Having said all of this, I do like the social support in the church, and it is one reason I remain. But I work hard to maintain cognitive diversity and my own individuality. The only organization I will sacrifice my individuality to is the Godhead (whether literal or metaphorical).

Sorry for the long post.

[Anonymous]

Don’t apologize. Those distinctions are important – and not considered nearly enough.

[Anonymous]

jmb275, I think you should follow the crowd and make your posts shorter…and use more emoticons like this: 😈

Just joking…your post had good clarifications. Your individuality and your ideas that are different than mine are what help me learn and why I enjoy this forum. It’d be boring if everyone thought like Heber (and incredibly less intelligent).

But don’t you think we need to draw the distinction between obedience and thoughts/ideas? Groupthink is different than obedience to something. If God gives a commandment to not smoke, then strict obedience would bring blessings, and leaving it up to individuals to decide if they feel smoking is good or bad is making it too ambiguous and people would lose out on the blessings they could have if they were obedient. We don’t need to be open minded and discuss when smoking is allowable or when it is not allowable… it is simply forbidden. Or a better example, driving more than 55 on a certain street is breaking the law, as a standard to keep order to society, and it can’t be left up to everyone’s judgment on how fast they feel they should drive on that street. To have order, you need to have rules to follow that protect the entire group, even if the individual sometimes has to make personal sacrafices for the good of society. Being part of that society is better than doing whatever you want.

I think there is a distinction between marriage is an institution, and that we should vote Yes for Prop 8. The first is how it is defined in the law, the latter is a choice on how the group chooses to deal with the political issue. Not everyone in the group will agree, so they should be open to all ideas, but at some point the group will make a choice and the members of the group conform or choose to leave the group. Groupthink is not that there should never be conformity, only that before making a group decision, you should hear all possibilities and not get narrow minded and rationalize away possible counterarguments that might lead to a better decision. But even if there was not groupthink, and the group was able to freely think of all possible solutions, at some point, there still needs to be a group decision and then conformity in action, even if there is diversity in thought.

So I guess, my clarification would be: Groupthink is always bad… but conformity is not always groupthink and sometimes conformity can be good and even necessary.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

jmb275, I think you should follow the crowd and make your posts shorter…and use more emoticons like this: 😈

Heber13 wrote:

Just joking…your post had good clarifications. Your individuality and your ideas that are different than mine are what help me learn and why I enjoy this forum. It’d be boring if everyone thought like Heber (and incredibly less intelligent).

Actually Heber, if everyone thought like you, the world would probably be better off.

Heber13 wrote:

But don’t you think we need to draw the distinction between obedience and thoughts/ideas? Groupthink is different than obedience to something. If God gives a commandment to not smoke, then strict obedience would bring blessings, and leaving it up to individuals to decide if they feel smoking is good or bad is making it too ambiguous and people would lose out on the blessings they could have if they were obedient. We don’t need to be open minded and discuss when smoking is allowable or when it is not allowable… it is simply forbidden.

I am quite skeptical of the WoW as a commandment from God. Good advice?, yes, commandment?, not in my book. Don’t think I take that as a license to get drunk. I still obey the WoW but I do it because it is wise. And, as for the principle, no, I don’t think it’s good for that to be a commandment. I think it’s a great suggestion, but not commandment. I personally don’t think it’s in the nature of God to worry that much about it, and I think it’s against His nature to do things that threaten people’s choices. The first response to this will be that we have agency. This is true, but we don’t have liberty. That is the distinction. And when powerful coercive forces are at play there is even less choice. Looking at WoW we see that. If one believes in the CK and wants to go there, one must obey the WoW since one must obey the WoW to go to the temple, and one must go to the temple to be exalted. This is a form of coercion. I don’t think all coercion is bad, particularly in a parent/child relationship. And if God were standing in front of me telling me I needed to obey the WoW to make to the CK, I would do it. But alas, all I have is Joseph’s revelation, and then a further revelation (policy change?) to make it necessary for entrance to the temple.

Heber13 wrote:

Or a better example, driving more than 55 on a certain street is breaking the law, as a standard to keep order to society, and it can’t be left up to everyone’s judgment on how fast they feel they should drive on that street. To have order, you need to have rules to follow that protect the entire group, even if the individual sometimes has to make personal sacrafices for the good of society. Being part of that society is better than doing whatever you want.

It’s funny you should bring this up. This is actually a worse example. In that book I mentioned he specifically analyzes this scenario. It turns out that people on the road, the collective group of drivers, will come to the “optimal” speed on their own, without any need for the rule. I’m not suggesting that we do away with the speed limit, but collective decision making is very powerful, and usually right if the group has the right elements. We accept rules because we falsely believe that they will keep us safe. And we feel the need to be safe because we fear.

Heber13 wrote:

I think there is a distinction between marriage is an institution, and that we should vote Yes for Prop 8. The first is how it is defined in the law, the latter is a choice on how the group chooses to deal with the political issue.

Why is the group meddling in a personal relationship between consenting adults? Why do we feel the need to define marriage?

Heber13 wrote:

Not everyone in the group will agree, so they should be open to all ideas, but at some point the group will make a choice and the members of the group conform or choose to leave the group. Groupthink is not that there should never be conformity, only that before making a group decision, you should hear all possibilities and not get narrow minded and rationalize away possible counterarguments that might lead to a better decision. But even if there was not groupthink, and the group was able to freely think of all possible solutions, at some point, there still needs to be a group decision and then conformity in action, even if there is diversity in thought.

Yes, I’m not arguing against group decisions that need to be made. I’m arguing against groupthink. When 15 aged, white, conservative males, coming almost exclusively from the same demographic, there is bound to be groupthink. I can’t prove it, but I think it filters down to us. Once again, groupthink is a phenomenon in which a group makes alternative hypotheses seem so improbable they should be ignored. Why do you feel that we need a speed limit to keep us safe? Why do you feel we need a commandment to not smoke? Have you examined the evidence enough to conclusively show that there are more benefits to having those rules than without? Have you examined the unintended consequences of each? For each law, and rule that is made, there are significant incentives, and consequences produced unintended. For SSM, what evidence is there that our church, and religious beliefs will be threatened if gays can marry? To me, we succumbed to groupthink by believing that it was so unlikely that our church would not be threatened, that we all (I use all loosely here) gave into the fear.

A very good example right now in our society is gun control. In my opinion, Democrats succumb to groupthink on this issue. They are convinced that if regular people can own and carry guns there will be more murder and high crime. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that crime actually goes down when people are free to own, and carry guns as they want.

Heber13 wrote:

So I guess, my clarification would be: Groupthink is always bad… but conformity is not always groupthink and sometimes conformity can be good and even necessary.

I agree, except that I believe that conformity leads to less cognitive diversity in the long run. And this leads to groupthink. It’s a vicious cycle and I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it too. If conformity were possible while always maintaining cognitive diversity it would be fine. But humans generally don’t operate this way.

[Anonymous]

I have to agree with jmb (that’s new, huh?) that just because it’s obvious to everyone that something is a good idea, doesn’t mean that this is “groupthink”. I think the smoking thing is a great example. 50 years ago it was propagated that smoking was good for you. Was it groupthink to foolishly follow the WoW? How about now? Everyone knows smoking is bad, is that now groupthink?

I feel that groupthink by definition is always bad because the point of it is to formalize the rejection of anything that goes against the thinking of the group.

Also, conformity is necessary in certain circumstances, however, it would be fascinating to see what the causes of those circumstances really were at their core. I’m feeling the devilish itch of potential discovery! 😈

[Author]

Posts