- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I would agree that there is a difference between group think and conformity, but they do play off one another. I don’t think that group think is bad or good, by itself. It’s consequences can be bad or good, but it is really nuetral. It depends on what actions and ideas come out of it. In a sense, all of us on this forum are a group and hold some common beliefs or have some common desires or purpose that draw us here. We also agree to conform to the rules of the group and play nice. That does not mean that we can’t belong to other groups and hold differing opinions. Our group is civil and allows outside thoughts and opinions and open discussion of difficult issues. However, we have boundaries that dictate what is acceptable and what is not. Within the church, there is much less openness and acceptance of disenting opinions. I’m not sure where that comes from. I have put a lot of thought into that lately. I think that much of the damaging “group think” and strict insistence on conformity are very much driven on the local level. While the church has over-arching policies that govern, I think local leaders tend to start applying this need for conforming to more things than it was meant for. I was reading this example here about the quote that when the leaders speak the thinking has been done:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/06/25/when-our-leaders-speak-the-thinking-has-been-done/ This is a quote that I’ve heard from time to time that I do not agree with. It seems that the prophet at the time, George Albert Smith, did not agree with it either. A well meaning person that figured having a prophet meant they had someone to think for them and didn’t have to have any responsibility in their actions. I do think that “group think” and conformity can be very good things in the church, but we often take it too far. But several of the prophets as outlined in the link above have decried the tendency for some church member to give up independent thought.
I think of Christ in 3 Nephi (warning: heavy paraphrasing, very heavy paraphrasing ahead) when he basically said, have no disputations among you for this is my gospel and more or less than this is not of me. We have to remember to conform to the heart of the gospel. I think all of the other stuff is there to help, but we must be the judge of whether or not it really helps us. I have always taken a “cafeteria” approach to the church. I don’t think I have to be everywhere or do everything the church has to offer. I do what brings me closer to God. Others may scoff, but they mostly do because they either feel trapped or they need justification for what they are doing. And those that look down on the less than perfect, are often struggling with the fact that they are less than perfect.
Sorry this got longer than I thought, but I think, there is enough justification and confirmed words by prophets for us to continue to boldy question things, seek answers and think independently. We should hold our heads high that we are seeking truth rather than having it spoon fed to us. In many ways, by doing so we are conforming more to the teachings of this church and its prophets.
mr_musicman wrote:Within the church, there is much less openness and acceptance of disenting opinions. I’m not sure where that comes from. quote]
In my little bit of experience, I seem to think the further you get from Salt Lake City and Provo, the more open the church and its members get, IMO. I grew up in New Jersey, and have lived most of my life in the east and seem to see a cultural difference than in Utah and Arizona and the west. That is a huge generalization, but it is what I see. And that is neither good nor bad, just different.
mr_musicman wrote:Sorry this got longer than I thought, but I think, there is enough justification and confirmed words by prophets for us to continue to boldy question things, seek answers and think independently. We should hold our heads high that we are seeking truth rather than having it spoon fed to us. In many ways, by doing so we are conforming more to the teachings of this church and its prophets.[/
ABSOLUTELY! Amen, brother. I totally like the way you put that … “hold our heads high” … it seems that sometimes people want the law of moses to tell them everything to do or not to do, as you said “spoon fed”, but there is also another element. Some people want the groupthink or others to be conforming to the same rules because it validates their beliefs. I think people like that are not strong enough to hold their heads up high and decide for themselves what to think regardless of whether others agree or not, but clearly the church would benefit from people thinking for themselves, not necessarily rebellious or difficult to be in the group with, but just be open minded to think for themselves and help point out different things to the leaders…and the entire body of the church would be strengthened by that.
jmb275 wrote: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?
Interesting that my speed limit idea was addressed in your book. Am I predictable or what?
Ok…so speed limits. Why does the book say it isn’t a good example? why don’t we just do away with all speed limits and make every street like the Autobahn? Yet on most streets with cars in most countries around the world there are speed limit laws. Why would that be? Does that mean everyone goes the speed limit? No. In fact, as you stated, during rush hour or groups of traffic, the ideal pace seems to be set by groupthink, and in fact, it would be more dangerous to go slower than to just keep up with the group and keep order. So does that mean the speed limit laws are useless and everyone should just drive however fast they want to?
I would argue that the laws come out of experience that it becomes dangerous when those rules are not there, based on the wisdom of people with past experience. I think the laws establish a standard. If someone is totally out of control, the cops have a rule to base the penalty for wreckless driving.
I think we’re getting hung up on the need for order, thus the need for rules, thus the need for conformity to a healthy degree vs the danger of groupthink. Can we agree on the fact that the church needs to have rules, or is that always inherently a bad thing that will limit individual expression? I find safety in having rules and don’t like others telling me my church’s standards need to change to allow for their needs. Am I in the wrong? I don’t want groupthink where the Council of the Twelve is in their ivory tower losing touch with society making rules that I think are wrong or outdated, but I don’t want selfish mob rule to dictate my church’s doctrine and standards either!
Heber13 wrote:why don’t we just do away with all speed limits and make every street like the Autobahn? Yet on most streets with cars in most countries around the world there are speed limit laws. Why would that be?
You have presumed (I think) that the reason is because it’s safer. Can you prove that? Can anyone? If they can, then I agree we should have it. But just because we have a rule for it, even if everyone has a rule for it, doesn’t make it a good thing.
Heber13 wrote:Does that mean everyone goes the speed limit? No. In fact, as you stated, during rush hour or groups of traffic, the ideal pace seems to be set by groupthink, and in fact, it would be more dangerous to go slower than to just keep up with the group and keep order. So does that mean the speed limit laws are useless and everyone should just drive however fast they want to?
We are having a terminology problem here. Groupthink is not the same as group consensus. Wise crowds will come to a very intelligent, sometimes even optimal solution on their own. This does not imply groupthink. As I’ve said, groupthink is the tendency of a dumb group (a group lacking the characteristics that result in wise decisions) to make dissenting opinions seem unlikely. Hence, the ideal traffic pace isn’t set by groupthink, but rather by a collective decision. If everyone in the group of cars thinks that going 100 mph is a good idea then the collective decision of the group will be bad. But, if the group has independence, external information, and cognitive diversity, it is likely that the group will come to the optimal pace on its own.No, this doesn’t mean speed limit laws are useless. And, on average I’m fairly confident that most people would drive about what the speed limits are anyway (not however fast they want to as this would be stupid). The problem with collective decision making, IMHO, is that it takes a mechanism for aggregating the information into a collective decision. For a group of cars, I would say yes, the speed limit is useless. But for preventing accidents between only a few cars, or between a child and a car (child runs out into the road and driver is going to fast to stop) speed limits are important. Oh, and speed limits are also useful for generating revenue. That’s because there is no mechanism for determining the optimal speed, there is no group. Incidentally, as you pointed out, we already do this in society. On the freeway, a pack of cars may travel 75 MPH. That’s against the law, and is over the approved speed limit which “keeps us safe.” Does that limit really keep us safe in this instance? No, in fact it may be detrimental. In this scenario, a driver would be wise to observe surrounding traffic and incorporate that into his/her decision for an optimal speed.
Heber13 wrote:I would argue that the laws come out of experience that it becomes dangerous when those rules are not there, based on the wisdom of people with past experience. I think the laws establish a standard. If someone is totally out of control, the cops have a rule to base the penalty for wreckless driving.
This is devolving into a discussion about laws rather than groupthink, but let me say once again, I’m fine with your assertion if you can provide evidence that an individual rule or law is better, including all unintended consequences, than the alternative. We have a tendency in our society that when something happens, we setup a plethora of rules and laws to “prevent” such things from happening again. Do they work? At what expense? Does current airport security curb plane hijackings? How often? Do plane hijackings still happen? Is there an alternative to preventing plane hijackings that doesn’t involve violating us at the airport terminal? How about allowing passengers who have CCWs to have guns on board?We shouldn’t be in the business of trying to prevent every possible tragedy and death. This isn’t the way life works. And in the meantime it is squashing freedom and individuality.
Heber13 wrote:I think we’re getting hung up on the need for order, thus the need for rules, thus the need for conformity to a healthy degree vs the danger of groupthink. Can we agree on the fact that the church needs to have rules, or is that always inherently a bad thing that will limit individual expression?
Rules (which don’t violate rights) are a part of any organization and I think the purpose of those rules is to preserve the organization, not to help the individual. Good advice, taught with love helps individuals. If not smoking is a good thing there should be much preaching against it. But it need not be a rule IMHO.
Heber13 wrote:I find safety in having rules and don’t like others telling me my church’s standards need to change to allow for their needs. Am I in the wrong? I don’t want groupthink where the Council of the Twelve is in their ivory tower losing touch with society making rules that I think are wrong or outdated, but I don’t want selfish mob rule to dictate my church’s doctrine and standards either!
I understand. I believe in a God that is interested in an individual. I believe in a God whose sole purpose is to help people come to Him. I believe that isonlypossible through God, by trusting God, and by having a relationship with Him (once again literal or metaphorical). To me, the church, with all its rules and commandments and ordinances should help me achieve this end. If it doesn’t I have no need for it. Fortunately I think there is much within Mormonism that helps me. jmb275 wrote: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.
jmb275 wrote:Rules (which don’t violate rights) are a part of any organization and I think the purpose of those rules is to preserve the organization, not to help the individual. Good advice, taught with love helps individuals. If not smoking is a good thing there should be much preaching against it. But it need not be a rule IMHO.
Wow, guys. I am learning a lot. Thanks all for sharing.
My own quick thoughts on group think–there are good and bad aspects to lots of things. The problem is that if group think it the reason something good is done, or followed, the same type of group cohesion may become detrimental when a bad idea or problem comes along. There are certainly times when peer pressure has caused good decision making, but it is often associated with teens doing dumb things to fit in. It doesn’t make those positive instances bad, but it does mean that in general, peer pressure isn’t the best way to get people to do things (I guess group think and peer pressure are very similar). Group think afflicts all sorts of things, not just Mormonism, and it isn’t a good thing. The Church would be better off if it pushed more individuality, and more personal analysis of the gospel and its policies. Naturally, this would create less cohesion and as a result, lesson the power and authority of the Church’s leaders, but it would certainly create stronger members,i.e., members that could withstand contradictory evidence, or difficult issues like Prop 8. Sorry if my thought doesn’t totally fit in, it’s off the cuff, and I’m new to this website and anxious to post. wordsleuth23 wrote:Group think afflicts all sorts of things, not just Mormonism, and it isn’t a good thing.
I think what you were saying is that group think causes individuals to do things for the wrong reason, even if what they’re doing could be classified as “good”.
In most cases, I would agree. Maybe in all cases, because I think the very definition of group think would be following the “group” in thought and deed. Which precludes thinking for oneself and therefore, never doing things for the right reason. I can’t think of an occasion where the right reason is, in fact, to follow the group. Mostly because that would mean someone is making an “individual” decision to “follow” the “group”. (How many quotes can I put in one post
🙄 )Doing something out of love, the right reason, is so personal and individual as to make the idea of group think antithetical. imho
To avoid groupthink, the Catholic Cardinals would appoint a devil’s advocate as they discussed the qualifications of a potential appointee (pope?). This explicit acceptance of friendly but earnest discussion with a purpose (like I experienced during my days at Wikipedia) is missing whenever groupthink is present. I understand that in theory the Quakers are good at extended debate and real consensus-building. Practice may vary. Consider that in Priesthood meeting/RS. Is there a positive way to gently foster the movement away from groupthink?
That would be awesome!!! A “devils advocate”!!! I want that calling!!! I already spend most of my life being that anyways…. 😈 😈 Quote:To avoid groupthink, the Catholic Cardinals would appoint a devil’s advocate as they discussed the qualifications of a potential appointee
That is interesting. The same thing is done in a church court, IIRC, with half being assigned on behalf of the member in question, and the other half on the other side. It’s a great way to bust groupthink. Personally, I think if you can’t clearly articulate the opposing argument, you shouldn’t be allowed to share your opinion.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:To avoid groupthink, the Catholic Cardinals would appoint a devil’s advocate as they discussed the qualifications of a potential appointee
That is interesting. The same thing is done in a church court, IIRC, with half being assigned on behalf of the member in question, and the other half on the other side. It’s a great way to bust groupthink. Personally, I think if you can’t clearly articulate the opposing argument, you shouldn’t be allowed to share your opinion.
Yes, I must say I’ve not experienced a church court, but in the few I’ve heard of it would seem that the opposing side does little to clearly articulate the argument on behalf of the accused. It would seem they are just sort of setting up a formality.Ray, any thoughts on this?
jmb275 wrote:Yes, I must say I’ve not experienced a church court, but in the few I’ve heard of it would seem that the opposing side does little to clearly articulate the argument on behalf of the accused. It would seem they are just sort of setting up a formality.
Ray, any thoughts on this?
If you don’t mind me jumping in…I do not think it is a mere formality. My experience is it is taken very seriously, but there really isn’t a lot of training on it, but they try with sincere hearts. I don’t know how you really get all the bias out of the process, though.
I think it very much is not a formality – when it is done correctly and when there is actual disagreement from the person involved. In all the ones in which I’ve participated, those who were assigned to make sure the accused person got a fair shake took that responsibility very seriously. When the outcome is obvious, it can be a rubber stamp, but I’ve been in at least one very difficult, complex case where there was wonderful input from both sides.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.