‘T Hart, Paul, Eric K. Stern, and Bengt Sundelius. Beyond groupthink: political group dynamics and foreign policy-making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.
Excellent overview and logical reasoning instead of pathological groupthink to distract from the reality.
Kim Jung-Un would be amazed at how good the Americans have become to braintrain a mass of people who forget the urgent affairs in their own country and get trapped in a disturbed mental state (there are paranoid and projective defenses, expressed through hysteria).
This is the effect of a controlled mass by invisible elites which managed to evade investigations in anything relating to them by complete secrecy while pretending to be democratic: whether a JFK; a Ukraine intervention (speaking of meddling!); ML King and Robert K. assassination, WMD and Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria (complete support for years of all those foreign terrorists). Enough madness to drive anybody mad from a perspective outside of the US. It must be hard for all who see it and yet great to know there is a whole group willing to express it. Please do keep commenting and writing as there are few media who do so. Thanks, Rick for your research and sanity!
Essays on groupthink - Research paper Academic Writing Servi
Groupthink is only one factor among other influencing variables that could affect the quality of decisions. One cannot assume that groupthink is the cause of practically every miscalculation or poor decision reached by a group. Groupthink theory suggests that poor decision outcomes are more likely when groupthink symptoms are present. Groupthink does not always result in a bad decision. Even when groupthink is occurring the group consensus and inherent biases could result in developing an effective solution to the problem at hand. Likewise, poor decisions cannot be avoided by simply avoiding groupthink. Other factors such as a lack of information, inadequate time for decision-making, poor judgment, pure luck, and unexpected actions by adversaries also play a role in the probability of a successful decision outcome.
Indications of this is that a sense of immunity builds unnecessary optimism and promoting the acquisition of risk, reduction of notifications that may confront suppositions, strain to conform in opposition to affiliates of the cluster who deviate, and self-appointed associates who defend the set from rebellious attitudes among others (Ahlfinger, and Esser, 2001, 31). At some stage in groupthink, constituents keep away from encouraging perspectives beyond the ease of consent idea.Need essay sample on "Testing the Groupthink Model"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $13.90/pageIn turn , concurrence seeking gives rise to symptoms of groupthink , which result in defective decision making and , ultimately in a low probability for a successful group outcome Logically , the existence of groupthink is indicated by evidence of eight symptoms (a ) the illusion of unanimity (b ) the illusion of imperviousness (c ) collective rationalizations (d ) direct pressure on dissenters (e ) self-appointed mudguards (f ) self-censorship (g belief in the intrinsic morality of the group , and (h ) stereotyping of outgroups Janis (1972 ) argued explicitly that the frequency and decree of these symptoms predict the quality of a group ‘s decision “The more often a group displays the symptoms the worse will be the quality of its decisionsThe groupthink model (Figure 1) provides a visual representation of the theory of groupthink, including the conditions under which groupthink is likely to occur, the symptoms of groupthink, and the consequences resulting from groupthink. According to the model the antecedent condition of a moderately or highly cohesive group (Box A) interacts with other structural faults of the organization (Box B-1) and/or provocative situational context factors (Box-2) to increase the probability of the groupthink tendency. The groupthink tendency is expressed in the observable consequences of the symptoms of groupthink (Box C). When a group displays most of the symptoms of groupthink, we can expect to find that the group will also display symptoms of defective decision-making (Box D). Defective decision-making normally lowers the probability of a successful decision outcome (Box E). The theory predicts that when a group is moderately or highly cohesive (Box A), the more of the antecedent conditions listed in boxes B-1 and B-2 that are present, the greater the chances of defective decision making as a result of the groupthink syndrome.