Groupthink,

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge two people who drew out the implications of the findings of Social Psychology in understanding the dynamics of the culture of the Jehovah's Witnesses. JanG offered some exellent information on this subject. Teejay also provided some insights he had learned on this subject.

One subject that was not mentioned was the concept of Groupthink. I will provide some information on this subject that is excerpted from a piece I wrote, but never published on the subject of the nature of organizations, as it applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. Here is what I wrote:

Unity and Solidarity - the good news and the bad news.

When a group develops a common languange, a standard mode of dress, and acceptable status hierachy, and a unified set of goals, they obtain a sense of comfort and security that is truly unique and fulfilling. That's
the good news.

Here's the bad news. The members of the group can become so homgeneous in their thinking that they act as one individual rather than as distinct individuals. They make their decisions without the benefit of diverse ideas and experiences that could help them reach wise decisions. A social psychologist, Irving Janis, studied this phenomena, and used a word to describe what can happen in this kind of setting. The word is found in the title of his book, "Victims of Groupthink (1971).

In his study of highly cohesive groups, he included only secular groups; no religous groups were studied. I mention this because these characteristics are exaserbated in religious organizations.

Janis listed eight characteristics of groups that gave them the potential for making disastrous decisions because they became the victoms of Groupthink. When I describe the eight characteristics of Groupthink as studied in secular organizations, you will discern how much more powerful these effects are in religious organizations. These characteristics are especially prominant in Governing Body decisions as docuemented by Ray Franze and in local elder decisions as docuemented my many here on this discussion forum.

1. The Illusion of Morality.

The Illusion of Morality is the illusion that everything that we are doing is good, right, and just. Everyone wants to believe that they are good and honest and what they are doing is right and just. However, if we are insulated from outside ideas, we cannot check out the "rightness" of our conclusions. If corporations and government bodies fall prey to this insidous problem, just think how much more suseptable a religion is that deals in morality on a continuing basis.

An issue that comes to mind for me is the one of the Governing Body saying in years past that oral sex was immoral, without any understanding of human sexuality.

2. Shared Stereotypes.

If you are part of a tight knit organization, or part of some decision making group in that organization, you develope a we-they attitude. We are right, and they are wrong. I think within the Witness culture, this even developes between the Governing Body and the rank and file. The Governing Body is good in their eyes and the rank and file can't be trusted.

For an organization, the outside world can be the enemy. A secular example, could be a major corporation who percieves the government with all its controls to be the enemy. Since the Jehovah's Witnesses consider the whole world to be "of Satan", obviously they have stereotypes about "the world." One of the biggest surprises people find out when they leave the Witnesses, is that the stereotypes they were taught about the world are not true.

3. The Illusion of Unanimity.

People can meet to make a decision, and each member of the group can believe that they are the only one who has a serious reservation about the concusions that the rest of the group is reaching. As a result, the people with reservations do not speak up. There may be several people with reservations but no one expresses them and, therefore, a disastrous decision becomes more likely. An example would be an elders judical committee meeting, where one elder has reservations, but does not express them.

4. Self Censorship

Self Censorhsip is closely related to the illusion fo unanimity. A person feels compelled to inhibit his or her comments so as not to "ruffle feathers" or "rock the boat". Harmony is respected; arugement is not. Thus, useful ideas do not surface and get discussd and disaster can result.

5. Rationalization

We want to feel that we are logical when we make decisions. In a highly cohesive group, dicrepancies and inconsistencies can be rationalized away so the that the "right decision" can be made. It is sort of like saying; "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up."

6. Direct Pressure

If someone in the group does dissent, the others are likely to put direct pressure on the dissenter through ridicule or sarcasm to stiffle the one who opposes the popular view. If the person continues to voice dissent over a long perion do time, they are likely to be expelled from the group, i.e, disfellowshipped. (Yes, it does happen in other organizations, my friends.)

7. Mindguarding

A person of prominence may hire a bodyguard to protect them from physical harm. By the same token, a memeber of a tight-knit group may protect the rest of the members of the group from intellectual harm by shielding the rest of the group from disturbing information. Thus, the group becomes further insulated from information that may disturb them, the very information that they may need to make an effective decision.

8. The Illusion of Invulnerability

Keep in mind that Irving Janis's work on Groupthink was done with secular organizations. He described many cases where groups making governmental decisions took on the the characteristics of Groupthink, and these groups came to think they were invulnerable, which led to what he termed "political fiasco's".

Does the Governing Body believe that they are invulnerable to the dissastrous effects of bad decisions? I believe so. The prediction of 1975 as being the year of Armageddon was on of their biggest fiascos.

The End.

Hi Larc: I join Teirce in saying that your presentation is very good. GroupThink is a double-edged sword. In the limited sense, such as a military, it works well for a specific defined goal, as it does in police or fire and rescue workers. Yet, even in these areas where GroupThink may be at its best, it is still then necessary to have diversity of opinions. I find that when GroupThink works its way into religious organization, the dangers are great that it can ferment and corrupt the Group; not always, but the risks seem higher nonetheless. Thanks again. - Amazing

Hello, Larc.

Excellent post. I spoke to Six yesterday about thought patterns (is that the comment of mine you meant?) and I almost wrote, "ask Larc" but didn't want to sound patronizing. Glad you posted this. I know it's only the very tip of the iceberg on the subject, but the overview is very worthy of all of our considerations. Something for all of us to think about.

peace,
tj

. http://128.100.159.139/FIS/Courses/LIS2149/Groupthink.html

Larc,

I wanted to comment, and maybe you'll comment further, about this thread. I find this sort of stuff extremely interesting. I will confine my thoughts to the reactions we have seen from fellow Americans as they have found new enthusiasm for openly demonstrating their patriotism.

Overall, I get the impression that groupthink is surrounded by a lot of negatives. Are there positives? Personally, I don't think there's ever a time when groupthink is the best alternative. I understand the need to have unity of purpose and therefore unity of action, but what if the chosen action is wrong.

In the case of the eight points you mention, I think it is fairly obvious that the average American is guilty of all eight. They have indeed acted as if one person. I think it's a dangerous trend, the "we" are right, "they" are wrong mentality. Bin Laden, and by extension the Taliban is the enemy, although prior to this crisis 98% of the viewing public didn't know what a taliban was. Neither was the average citizen aware of the plight of Afghan women any more than they are aware of women and children in other countries who are being brutalized as we speak. The Afghan women are the damsels of distress of the moment, is all, and the U.S. of A. is going to be their savior, GOD WILLING. The 'god' part makes us 'right.'

Those who have the nerve to override the inner mechanism to censor self and voice their reservations, no matter how well-meaning and sincere they are, are subsequently ridiculed, said to be unpatriotic or worse. You may have heard about the uproar over a comment Bill Mauer made on his TV show last week, how advertisers pulled their adds. I like him AND his show. I don't always agree, but many of his comments on various topics are those that I would make. What he said last week was true. The problem, at times like this, is that there was little interest in either his words or his intent in what he said. The idea was to quiet any thought (even if it meant taking him off the air) that was peculiar and not in lockstep with the norm. I got mad for him.

Now that you have highlighted the characteristics of groupthink will you also let us know what the cure is? I, for one, have mastered the dissenting part -- I think I was born with two dominant genes for it. What if I was ate up with a major case of groupthink? How would I get over it?

tj

sf,

I have genuine sympathy for your situation. I've always said that those who had it worst were not those who left the WTS voluntarily, but those who were thrown out and told they were wrongdoers. Especially for someone in your situation where you didn't have the Net for so many years to find out you weren't alone.

I hope you get the help you seek.

larc I spent several hours today reading about "Group Think" wish the original book was not out of print. So far I've had no luck laying my hands on a copy. Stimulating stuff.

Hey Larc,thank`s for bringing this up.I hadn`t seen it before.From Chow mein to group think.You do come up with the threads.This is a good one...OUTLAW

teejay,

I didn't explain that well. Let me restate it. I meant Amazings examples on this thread. He meantioned the military and fire fighting as examples where Groupthink is a good thing.

I have become very interested in this subject since reading Cialdini's The Psychology of Persuasion. It is interesting how the dynamics of Groupthink also play out on this board at times. Especially, when it means possible negative consequences against the WTS. No matter how far fetched and absurd the story may be (There have been plenty of those here). We look for others to observe what our appropriate response should be in situations of that nature.When someone raises their hand to ask a question, it is quickly slapped down by the others. They are told to keep quiet. How dare you not follow the herd?!

The Latter Day Saints (as they prefer to be called), or Mormons, take group think to a new level. Back in the 19th century when their leader, Joseph Smith, was murdered in Missouri, they bound together even stronger in their purpose to survive and grow. Outside forces trying to destroy them only made them more determined to endure and in the coming years, thrive. So strong was their common goals.

Along with the military, I think that law enforcement also utilizes group think. Many police, and correction officers, come from a military background. They also have the "us vs.them" mentality. We, the "them", are "civilians". I understand because of the life threatening situations they are faced with on a daily basis, the bonds of separateness are natural. However, it becomes harmful when one sees wrongdoing and corruption within the ranks, and there is hesitation, and justifiable fear, of coming forward and reporting fellow officers. Whistle blowers in the ranks generally have their careers destroyed, and sometimes face threats of violence to themselves and their families.

I agree with Amazing that Groupthink works when there is a a single identifiable goal. The bottom line is,however, GroupThink's dangers far out weigh it's benefits.

Andee