While reading the article “Groupthink”, I kept thinking about how before I read this, I had always assumed the influence and impact of group consensus but never to this extent. By extent, I mean that groupthink can lead to genocide or massacre and then the group who committed the act doesn’t see the moral consequences or the ethically wrong aspects of it. And even if there are morally conscience and ethically aware members in the group, they “unintentionally suppress [their] critical thoughts due to the internalization of the group norms”, which would be believing the consensus regardless of if their policies are working or not, and the group’s exertion of pressure on any doubters or disbelievers. Another flaw of groupthink is that the group doesn’t check over their plans for possible warnings or risks, which could be blatant warnings, like in the case of Pearl Harbor mentioned in the article. The extent of groupthink’s reach is really dangerous because once a groupthink consensus is reached, it seems almost impossible to alter it or tweak it for the better, leading to only negative outcomes.
One part of the article that made me feel better about groupthink was the remedies section and how it detailed how groupthink can be avoided. I feel like these ideas would really work and stop groupthink before it even occurred, especially the concept of bringing outside experts in. I think this would work very well because once a group forms, it is unusual for new members to join, let alone be heard within the group; by having a new voice and new eyes to the situation, warnings and alternative options can be drawn up and implemented, preventing poor decisions to be made.
I think that splitting a group into two or more smaller groups is a really important and good solution to groupthink. Splitting a group up like that will help prevent people from all thinking one way and helps create more ideas and more conversation.
Splitting up the group into two and making sure everyone’s opinions are heard is very important. However, one thing that was troubling at the end of the article was how Janis mentioned sometimes, in immediate emergencies, there is often not enough time for the group to critically evaluate all their options and prevent groupthink from happening since they must respond urgently.
I also agree with the remedy section of the article as being the most helpful. I especially liked the part that encouraged each member of the group to be a critical thinker. By having each member think for themselves there are more opportunities for dissent and alternating opinions. However, there is a thought that even after encouraging this behavior the members would still act in consensus.