{"id":2901,"date":"2015-09-05T15:24:16","date_gmt":"2015-09-05T20:24:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/monte\/?p=2901"},"modified":"2015-09-05T15:24:16","modified_gmt":"2015-09-05T20:24:16","slug":"how-to-recognize-the-dangers-of-groupthink","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/monte\/2015\/09\/05\/how-to-recognize-the-dangers-of-groupthink\/","title":{"rendered":"How to recognize the dangers of groupthink"},"content":{"rendered":"

Strict conformity of opinion is the enemy of intellectual liberty \u2014 and both conservatives and liberals fall into this trap.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

By Monte Bute<\/strong><\/p>\n

MINNEAPOLIS STARTRIBUNE–AUGUST 29, 2015\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Regardless of one\u2019s belief system, political creed or group affiliation, we are all susceptible to an intellectual short circuit \u2014 groupthink. Groupthink seeks conformity by stamping out dissent. The stronger an in-group\u2019s loyalty, Irving Janis writes, \u201cthe greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against outgroups.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nothing demonstrates this like presidential elections. Mark Twain\u2019s 19th-century quip remains true today: \u201cMen think they think upon the great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side.\u201d<\/p>\n

Devout conservatives religiously digest the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard, and watch Fox News; doctrinaire liberals faithfully consume the New York Times and Talking Points Memo, and watch MSNBC. Few in either camp are ecumenically inclined.<\/p>\n

Stereotyping and scapegoating flow from groupthink. Reactionaries pummel the poor, immigrants and women. Progressives torch Wall Street capitalists, fundamentalist Christians and white males. The irony is that while both factions astutely call out their antagonists\u2019 faulty generalizations, each remains oblivious to its own.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the remedy? First, one must recognize having fallen prey to group thinking. This insight often occurs with the disturbing experience of cognitive dissonance \u2014 the mental discomfort caused by holding two contradictory ideas at the same time. Perhaps F. Scott Fitzgerald put it best, \u201cThe test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the last half of the 20th century, the eminent economist Albert Hirschman best exemplified Fitzgerald\u2019s definition of \u201ca first-rate intelligence.\u201d In the midst of the Reagan counterrevolution, liberals sought to grasp the conservative mind. Hirschman, himself a liberal, did not limit his inquiry to the contemporary scene. Instead, in \u201cThe Rhetoric of Reaction,\u201d he returns to the French Revolution and examines 200 years of conservative rhetoric opposing social change.<\/p>\n

Hirschman discovered three perennial rhetorical strategies pursued by reactionaries.<\/p>\n