Groupthink

[an8150]

Is the Politics and Religion forum on this site subject to groupthink?

Please discuss.

[trish]

Do libertarians adhere to libertarian principles to a degree sufficient to warrant the name libertarians?

Are almost all NRA members against any further registration, control or regulation of firearms?

If an liberal didn't subscribe to a sufficient amount of liberalism to warrant calling him a liberal, would he still be a liberal?

Does an intellectually active person who finds herself or himself falling between the cracks of the major political philosophies of the day not "subject to groupthink?" Is it the only way to avoid being "subject to groupthink?"

If someone came to the principles of conservatism of their own accord, weighing the evidence and thinking though the principles, are they still "subject to groupthink?"

If one takes the expressway because it's the quickest and easiest way to get where one is going, and somebody else takes the back roads to avoid taking the route everyone else seems to be taking, then which one is "subject to groupthink?"

Does a post that follows the well worn format ( like "question + discuss") a prototypical example of groupthink?

What does "subject to groupthink" mean?

Is accusing someone of being subject to groupthink like accusing them of being sheeple; i.e. an example of groupthink?

Discuss.

[broncofan]

an8150,
On many issues in this forum there will end up a clear majority supporting a general proposition. But I haven't seen evidence that people are looking for cues from other posters before expressing themselves. People can independently come to opinions that are similar. Groupthink is most prevalent in a collaborative environment where individuals use the assumptions of others instead of weighing the evidence initially of their own accord. It is not something that occurs every time people happen to hold consistent opinions.

[robertlouis]

If you want to see groupthink in action, go to North Korea. Even there, it's a combination of overt and subliminal coercion.

Although it sounds like a prime piece of Newspeak as coined by Orwell in 1984, its origins lie in the early 1950s. It still has overtones of totalitarianism to me regardless.

I think Broncofan summarises the reality of the situation on HA very well. One of the things that I particularly like about HA is that while you can be part of a strong consensus on one subject, you can just as easily hold vehemently opposing views on another which contradicts the views of the original consensus without encountering flaming or worse. OK, it happens from time to time, but not that often.

[fred41]

an8150,
On many issues in this forum there will end up a clear majority supporting a general proposition. But I haven't seen evidence that people are looking for cues from other posters before expressing themselves. People can independently come to opinions that are similar. Groupthink is most prevalent in a collaborative environment where individuals use the assumptions of others instead of weighing the evidence initially of their own accord. It is not something that occurs every time people happen to hold consistent opinions.

I agree. The political threads on this site seem to be taken a lot more serious by the folks that regularly post on it lately and you can never be sure where an issue is going to go by each individual poster. A lot of the contributing members may sometimes slant a bit more left of center (depending on your definition)...but the details often display important differences in people's mindset. Everyone on this site took a different journey to get here, bringing their experiences with them...and that is often reflected in their responses.
I can give examples using names...but I'm not sure if that's warranted.