Month: October 2019

In the reading Elevating dissent and transcending fear-based culture, I thought it was very interesting the point the writer brought up about the publics’ involvement in democracy. In the United States, we claim to appreciate the ability to have to say in what happens in government, and while we push for positive difference, people do not casually talk about global issues that impact our community. The writer says, “in the face of this lack of democratic vitality, few observers seem to be able to do anything other than throw up their hands” (Cheny 183). By this, the writers are trying to explain the actions the public does take in the time of trouble. Instead of talking and moving towards movements to make situations better, they just complain about the problem at hand. 

This phenomenon of being a fearful culture, as put in the readings is due to the history of the U.S. when it comes to big turning points like 911 inducing fear, followed by the increase of security to help the fear, then the discussion of ending the danger, and finally the blaming of the problem one on group. Therefore, that is why we as a culture of fearful of revolutions in such a stable society. Taking this into consideration, how do you think we can change the course of our fearful society to be one that interacts more as it should as a democratic government?

Leave a Comment

On September 11^th, the Jepson School hosted the Marshall Center Lecture Series. Joshua B. Kaplan was the speaker and his talk was titled “Be Careful What You Wish For: Exploring the Consequences of Electoral College Reform”. Joshua is an associate professional specialist and director of undergraduate studies in the department of political science at the University of Notre Dame. He got his undergraduate degree at the University of California: Santa Cruz and his graduate degree from the University of Chicago. Joshua first started his talk by explaining that its purpose is not to debate the pros and cons of the electoral college but to explore the consequences of the electoral college reforms that have been proposed, which is more complicated than it sounds. I believe that this talk is relevant especially in today’s political climate and after the last election where the electoral college results and popular vote results were different.

Joshua gave a brief overview on how the electoral college works before going through the four possible reform proposals: the automatic plan, direct elect, the proportional plans, and the national popular vote plan. If the automatic plan was enacted it would keep the electoral votes but eliminates the electors which would eliminate the problem of the faithless elector. One of the consequences he brought up was that it would require a constitutional amendment. Through direct elect it would eliminate the possibility that the winner of the popular vote would lose the electoral vote, increasing the chance that no candidate would get a majority, resulting in party strategy changes. This reform would be the biggest difference to our current system. The proportional plans make the electoral vote more closely reflect the popular vote but can introduce distortions of its own. The national popular vote plan would focus on an interstate compact that would only go into effect when the states agree of a total of 270 electoral votes. The one issue with this is that it might violate the Voting Rights Act if it diminishes the power of minority votes. My question after hearing this talk is would it be safer to stay with the system we have now or change to one of the reform proposals?

Leave a Comment

I watched the talked hosted by the Jepson Leadership Forum on September 27^th online. This was the first in the series named “Truth and Representation in the Internet Age”. Katie Hafner was the speaker discussing the history of the Internet and how it emerged. She was on the staff of the New York Times for ten years writing about technology, healthcare, and society. Throughout her life, she had written many books and her most prominent one being “The Origins of the Internet” which she had written with her late husband.

She first started off the talk by showing the audience a graph of the number of hosts on the Internet. Before 1995, the slope remained relatively constant and then spiked from the years 1995-2000. As of now there are about 150 billion hosts on the Internet. She then debunked many of the myths, one being that the Web and the Internet were the same thing, which I though so. One name that I felt frequently came up was Paul Baron who invented packet switching. Packet Switching is the idea of taking a message, dividing it into packets, sending them away on a network, and then they reassemble at the destination. Throughout the talk she used different technology terminology that I had never heard of before and she did a really good job of explaining what it was. Katie brought up how everything seemed to have aligned to create the perfect situation for them to create the Internet. This reminded me of the idea we talked about in class of leaders being born in the right place at the right time.

Katie ended her talk with a quote from her interview with Larry Roberts. She had asked him what he believed the biggest problem with the Internet would be. He replied that in 2018, he believed that the biggest issue would be network security and that it would take a lot of work to solve this problem, which currently does not have a solution.

Leave a Comment

In Irving Janis’ article, she analyzes the concept of groupthink and its negative repercussions. She explains that groupthink is caused by social in-group pressures while making a decision. After reading this article, I immediately thought about my days in elementary and middle school when we would vote on something. Often while voting we would put our heads down and raise our hands in order to indicate our vote. I never knew why we would do this, but it was most definitely to prevent groupthink and get a true consensus.

Groupthink was very much involved in the movie Thirteen Days, in which JFK and his cabinet were under the pressures of making a decision regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Because this was a very scary and strenuous time, making a decision was difficult and groupthink was absolutely present. JFK, being a fairly new president, put a lot of trust in his cabinet and was influenced by the group while making a decision, although he was highly aware of groupthink due to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. After the failed invasion, cabinet members outwardly referred to groupthink, as they regretted not saying anything before executing the dangerous covert invasion. It seems very surprising that even brilliant people who are in charge of massive decisions regarding national protection still give into groupthink. Overall, thirteen days along with Janis’ article express the dangers of groupthink and explain how powerful it actually is.

2 Comments

This groupthink article really delved into the idea of how a group can be affected in numerous ways. I think this article had really focused on how groupthink is described as a form of communication within a group and the fact that it really disturbs the concise thought process. It is more imperative in “groupthink” for member to agree amongst each other and recognize that. To me it is very interesting that this thought process is seen as a negative action. 

In the article it states vividly that people in “groupthink” are almost too nice and avoid the thoughts of being “too critical”. This thought process can be extremely inefficient for a group. This is because the progress that is needed for a group to be successful is for it to have people sharing their own personal idea s and thought and occurrences. which then leads to a consensus. With groupthink the group is seemingly only intervening with each other to finish the task it seems like and only want to get to the next issue just to “finish”. 

5 Comments

In his article “Groupthink,” Irving Janis explains the flaws of group thinking, or groupthink as he calls it, and suggests a few remedies to it. The main problem with groupthink is that the opinion of the majority can smother the opinion of the minority, especially in situations where unanimity is required. A group can turn into its own little society; norms are established relatively quickly, and a sense of loyalty to the group makes challenging these norms difficult. Janis categorizes this phenomenon as pressure. He suggests nine remedies to counter the effects of groupthink when making a decision in a group setting. The overarching theme present in all nine is the importance of objection. Placing a priority on objection forces the group to face any possible downfall in a plan, and this creates, in theory, watertight decisions.

 

The plot of Thirteen Days revolves around the issues that present themselves in a group setting. The movie dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis, in particular, a period of high tension in American politics as it followed the failure of the Bay of Pigs. One thing that stuck out to me in this movie was how it was important to recognize that every member of a group has a different perspective, as well as a personal agenda. Most members of the groups in Thirteen Days represented a department of the government, so JFK had to take in everyone’s input while keeping this in the back of his mind.

6 Comments

In Irving Janis excerpt of “Groupthink” the author talks about how groupthink is involved when a group of people are together and they have to think about solutions to problems or decision-making about something. Janis talks about in the decision making process that people tend to be more prone to one side of the decision and focus more on agreeing to get a feeling of togetherness thorughout the decision. Janis states that “the symptoms of groupthink arise when the members of decision-making groups become motivated to avoid being too harsh in their judgements of their leaders’ or their colleagues’ ideas.” This was very interesting to me because in some way I believe that everyone has been involved in some degree of groupthink and I found it interesting that the people in the group are more inclined to agree with everyone even if they aren’t sure that it is the right decision.

When talking about groupthink I think it is important because we make decisions everyday and sometimes we make decisions as a group and it only makes sense that when we are in a group, especially if it is a minor situation, we tend to go to the easiest decison, even when we go against our own individual thinking. Janis also talks about norms and how people feel accepted in a group that has increased group cohesiveness which means they are less likely to go against the leader or any other group members. This is relatable to me because I know that I have been involved in some degree of groupthink and to understand that there is a term for the way we thought as a group is interesting.

2 Comments

Groupthink is definitely a serious issue. However, it is integral to the solution for people to understand it’s true definition. I love that Janis explains the definition against the commonly confused definition as “ nondeliberate suppression of critical thoughts as a result of the internalization of the group’s norms.. [not]… deliberate suppression on the basis of external threats of social punishment”. Both of these are issues that often sprout when there are leaders working together in groups. However, groupthink is almost more threatening due to its invisibility. It is hard for people to know, let alone to acknowledge when it’s happening.

The solution to the problem of groupthink is true inclusivity. Diversity insinuates that there are people of different characteristics or viewpoints, while inclusivity adds the empowerment piece to it all. Inclusivity allows enough cohesivity that everyone feels the power to speak up while also maintaining their individual authenticity and not letting their ideas get swallowed up by the group. The examples given in the article in conjunction with the movie all give great examples as to when and why even powerhouses like the United States can move very inefficiently. When the United States effectively uses its one “secret weapon” of diversity in all aspects, we will truly be made great. We have yet to do so but hopefully with acknowledging tendencies like these, we can correct these issues as we move forward. So we will never have to be in such a strenuous period of such avoidable nature, ever again.

4 Comments

In this article, it discusses the idea of “groupthink” and how it can effect a group in various ways. The author says, “I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action”(Janis 361). Janis describes groupthink as a form of communication within a group that distracts the group from concise thoughts and rather focuses on agreement between members.

I found it interesting and agree how groupthink is seen negatively. In the article, it states how symptoms emerge when purposefully avoid being too critical on their group-mates ideas. This can be extremely inefficient within a group because no progress could be made if other people in the group do not share their personal ideas despite going against others views. Rather than having meaningful conversation and debate, groupthink substitutes this for the search for concurrence before moving on to the next issue.

5 Comments

In Irving Janis’ analyzation of groupthink, she talks about how groupthink is most dangerous during “a crisis situation that puts everyone under intense stress.” Although Janis didn’t mention this as an example of groupthink, I kept thinking about the Donner Party. The Donner Party was a group of settlers in the mid 1800s who were trapped in the Sierra Nevada during the winter. In order to survive, the group resulted to cannibalism.

I remember learning about this in my high school psych class, but I’m not sure if we focused on the group dynamic in general or groupthink. In terms of groupthink, I think this is a really interesting example because this small group was put under so much stress that they ignored their reservations about such a taboo topic and literally began eating each other. It is easy to look back in hindsight and say we would have never done that, but due to the stress that starvation put on the group, they were unable to see any other option. And for those who argued for plan b, the pressure from the group silenced them.

4 Comments

This week’s article talks about groupthink. Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people who believe similar things put not offending anyone over actually making good decisions. According to the article, groupthink results in invulnerability, rationale, morality, stereotypes, pressure, self-censorship, unanimity, and mind guards. In my AP psych class in high school, we talked about groupthink in a different way. We talked about groupthink being when a group of like-minded individuals comes together and their ideas become more extreme due to the constant confirmation of their ideas. In both definitions, it results in bad decision making which I think is the most significant outcome of groupthink. It leads top people making quick decisions that they didn’t think all the way through or just didn’t give enough time to see every angle or possibility. In the Bay of Pigs example, JFK underestimated almost everything about Casto and the Cuban military. Though the article states that some of that was due to bad intel, Kennedy could have put more time and energy into thinking about his decision as opposed to just sending in the military. I don’t know, it just seems that having a group with differing opinions that can work together and compromise leades to better decision making than having a homogeneous group making all the decisions without thinking about all the possible consequences.

4 Comments

The idea of “groupthink” is an interesting form of decision making. Janis talks about how in multiple social-psychological studies, members of a group automatically feel more accepted than others. This causes members of the group that may think differently or have different opinions than the rest of the group to hold back on input they may have that they think would work better in whatever situation a decision is being made in. To me, this is a negative side effect of “groupthink.” Janis writes about “groupthink” as an inferior form of decision making in my opinion and I agree. There are so many factors such as invulnerability that make “groupthink” ineffective. I also believe that it is much easier to be overoptimistic and make dangerous and irrational decisions in a group.

Janis uses the Bay of Pigs as an example of a “groupthink” decision. It is pointed out that some of the greatest intellectual minds of American government were involved in making the Bay of Pigs decision. I also think it is interesting how Janis says that the people involved with big failures in decision making in history are “victims” of “groupthink.” I think this is true because of course people want to make the right decisions that will lead them to success, but working in a group can unintentionally ruin intentions.

3 Comments

After watching Thirteen Days and reading Janis’ “Groupthink”, I can now see how connected the two are. I watched the movie first and read the excerpt a few days later. As I was reading Janis’ excerpt, I was able to connect at least one scene to many of Janis’ claims, especially the 8 main symptoms of groupthink.

It is easy to look back and say JFK and his cabinet made the right decicions but watching the thirteen days unfold scene by scene, meeting by meeting. But no matter how many correct decisions they made, the Cuban Missile Crisis is a prime example for groupthink of high-level governmental decision making. In groups and out groups between civilians and military personnel, cabinet members and other government officials are always a part of politics but when looking for them, these in groups and out groups become more and more apparent in times of crisis and heightened stakes.

One scene that stuck out to me as a prime example of groupthink was when JFK and his cabinet were going over the different plan options. Members of the cabinet put fourth their opinions: blockade or air strikes. One member of the cabinet suggested to do nothing, claiming that ‘some one had to put their head on the chopping block here’. To this JFK told his press secretary to write speeches on both blockade and air strike options, completely disregarding the option of non-action.

This is directly related to Janis’ claim that unanimity is a symptom of groupthink. Janis describes that through unanimity, “to avoid such an unpleasant state, the members often become inclined, without realizing it, to prevent latent disagreements from surfacing when they are about to initiate a risky course of action” (368). I agree that unanimity made JFK disregard the in-action plans, but I also think JFK and his cabinet did realize that they were actively avoiding and preventing disagreements. As a result of the very unsuccessful Bay of Pigs, inaction was not really an option. The fact that the cabinet member who proposed the inaction plan felt like he was sticking his head out on the chopping block reiterates the presence and weight of groupthink in high stakes political decisions, especially during the thirteen days of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

1 Comment

Janis basically defines groupthink as when the dominant opinion in a group of people becomes so strong that is overrides consideration of alternative tactics. He also made the point that a more cohesive group is more likely to experience groupthink. It makes sense that a group that’s better at working together would start to think together, but these two things have very different connotations. We are taught that groupthink is a dangerous concept, which I agree that it is, but on the flip-side, cohesion in a group is something that we are taught to strive for. Cohesion helps a group be more efficient, another quality that we think of as positive in a group.

The movie Thirteen Days shows the aftermath of groupthink. The failed Bay of Pigs invasion was a consequence of groupthink. JFK believed his military advisors because he was a new president who placed too much trust in their expertise. His newly elected status caused him to not feel strong enough to question or defy the dominant opinion. Because no one raised questions, the mission failed miserably. The Cuban Missile Crisis shows the aftermath of this decision. JFK takes calculated moves, even with his military advisors, because he now understands that every individual person has their own agenda which influences their opinions. The military generals wanted to redeem themselves after the Bay of Pigs failure, so they supported an all-out invasion (according to the movie). The movie paints JFK as the unmoving obstacle between the Pentagon, Cuba, and World War III, an adversary to groupthink. While I am not sure whether this is historically true, it shows the value of fighting groupthink, because if he had blindly followed the majority opinion, we would have fought another World War, most likely a nuclear one which would have changed the world as we know it.

4 Comments

Irving Janis made an interesting point about some explanations for “stupid” decisions made by federal decision-makers were incomplete. Janis states, “explanations were incomplete if they concentrated only on disturbances in the behavior of each individual” including “temporary emotional states of elation, fear, or anger that reduce a man’s mental efficiency…” (Janis, 360- 361) This statement makes me think of one reason why some people didn’t vote for Hilary Clinton during the 2016 election. Many Trump supporters, Republicans, etc believed that Hilary was the lesser candidate compared to Trump because she is a woman. And because of her womanhood, she would not have been able to “make rational decisions” due to women’s tendencies to be “emotionally unstable”. This allowed for any opinion of Clinton to be skewed against her. Women are deemed unfit or not as fit as men to be such prominent leaders because emotions could and would get in the way of any capacity to lead. Furthermore, this allows for men to be seen as superior and superior in humanity. In reality, this is a denial of humanity and a clear demonstration of the inability to have self-control, which both contradict qualities of great leadership.

Based on the Bay of Pigs example given in the text, my initial thought of what “groupthink” might have been was the idea that those in a position of leadership are more likely to make decisions based on majority agreements. Janis confirms my thoughts and goes on to explain the causes, symptoms/consequences, and remedies for this “typical phenomena of social conformity”. Janis further confirms my hypothesis with the concept of “concurrence-seeking”, in which norms and harmony are desired typically more than realistic circumstances and conscious feelings. With groupthink, there is so much intentional and unintentional group/peer pressure that rational thinking that would allow for realistic decision-making could be skewed towards immorality or amorality. No one wants to step on anyone else’s toes; no one wants to be the oddball in the room; no one wants to be the source of drama or of conflict.

The film “Thirteen Days” details the behind-the-scenes process in which former President John F. Kennedy and his executive advisors made decisions in handling the Cuban Missile Crisis. They knew that they could not allow the Soviet Union to store missiles in Cuba, so they had to get them out for safety and status reasons. Advisor Bobby, the Assistant to the President, and President JFK had congregated outside of the entire advisory board to discuss options. This was an illustration of Janis’ remedies numbers 1 and 4 because they stepped off as a more condensed group near the start of the film to criticize the group’s thinking more deeply. The President had been presented with 3 options for how to handle the crisis: surgical air strike against missiles, large airstrike against air defenses and missiles or invasion. Initially, the President saw this as the best option, yet as the movie went on, discussions were expanded on choosing the best options. This was an illustration of remedy number 2, in which Janis suggests for a group to have an impartial stance, not definite, on what is to happen to open the floor for inquiry and potential policy alternatives.

 

2 Comments

Firstly, the play Appropriate was extremely well done. I thought the acting was really great and you could tell that they put a lot of work into it.

Secondly, the play itself was a little confusing and had so many different elements to it that made it both very interesting and also hard to understand. We talked about it after in my FYS (my teacher is the director) and she loved the feedback my class had. One student pointed out the foreshadowing of the little boy putting the lampshade on his head and then later in the play coming down with the KKK mask on his head and I thought that was an interesting point because both times, the child was just an innocent little kid who didn’t really know what he was doing but the adults knew exactly what that was supposed to represent. Professor Holland mentioned that in her view of the play, every time the cicadas chirped, it was supposed to represent another thirteen years had passed and I definitely did not pick up on that when I was watching it. I think it was an interesting ending as well when the house fell apart and was also supposed to represent the family falling apart with it because it shows the relationship between things that are important in our lives. Some parts I still do not necessarily know why they were in the play like when Franz walked down the stairs to the older cousin doing his thing on the couch or the relationship between the two cousins that was very creepy and I did not like that at all.

Overall, I enjoyed the play very much and I think some of the points about racism and prejudices were very powerful. It also puts an emphasis on family matters which is another important aspect.

Leave a Comment

The concept of “groupthink” is very interesting because it makes sense that if you are in a very close, cohesive group, you won’t want to stray from the majority because you will feel isolated. However, when it comes to serious matters such as the Bay of Pigs, it would obviously make sense to try and think about the situation from all perspectives, like how the Cuban Missile Crisis was carried out. But also, it is really easy for me to say this because I am on the outside looking in and I can see why alternative opinions are needed. This goes back to the article by Janis and how those who are guilty of groupthink probably don’t even realize that they are doing it.

When looking at groupthink from a less serious matter, because Janis stated that it can happen in business and other areas as well, it seems like something that would happen less because in situations that are not as critical like protecting the United States, dissenting opinions are encouraged. Personally, I was always taught to say what I believe or to speak out when I either question something or do not agree (when appropriate of course). People even debate for fun because arguing different sides makes things exciting.

Overall, I think that it can be important to get opposing opinions in any crucial decision, no matter how big or small. I agree with Janis about how ending groupthink can be difficult when time plays a factor but I think that understanding how Kennedy carried out the Cuban Missile Crisis can be a huge help since he kept the same administration as the Bay of Pigs but allowed for a bunch of people to input their doubts and fears on the topic at hand.

4 Comments

I have always found the theory of groupthink to be very interesting, because you would like to think that in a group people would work better, however that is not the case. In a group people tend to hold back on saying what they actually think, because they don’t want to be the only member of the group with a dissenting opinion, and they tend to stop critically analyzing themselves because they blatantly believe everything being said in the group is true. What is interesting to me is the fact that when the group is presented with information that contradicts with the original set of policies that the group has agreed upon, they ignore them. Additionally, I did not realize that group think causes the members of the group to not think of the consequences of their actions, as well as what the reaction of their enemy would be.

 

I thought that the movie Thirteen Days gave a great insight into groupthink actually occurring in action. I think that the movie showed what a great deal of pressure Kennedy and his team were under to make a decision. I think it was really obvious that at times people wanted to voice their opinions that were disagreeing with the group, but they decided against it. I also found it interesting how they took everything that the CIA told them as the absolute truth, because in the end they ended up having false intelligence. I think that this is where the solutions that Janis outlined in his piece about pulling in outside information and experts who are not under the same amount of pressure that the team was under. The solutions outlined all make perfect sense to me, but I think that in a time a crisis, such as the Bay of Pigs incident, that there would not be enough time for all of the solutions to be put into place. So when do you pick and choose what solutions a group implements in a time crunch?

2 Comments

It was interesting to read about groupthink. Normally, I would think that the more people you have, the better the decision will be, because there are more opinions and expertise available. However, that does not work when there is a cohesive group, because the decision making process can easily fall into groupthink and have disastrous consequences.

One of the interesting points in the reading was the comparison of the Bay of Pigs and how it led to groupthink, because it was dominated by consensus and there was no real challenge to the intelligence of the CIA. However, Janis pointed out that the Cuban Missile Crisis was handled extremely well by the same administration. It was interesting to look for parallels between the reading and Thirteen Days to see how the situation did not fall into groupthink. The major reason that I saw was Kennedy’s resilience against the single-minded view of the chiefs to go to war. Kennedy forced many people to come up with alternative opinions that would not drive the US to war.

Overall, I think it is important not to fall into the belief that good decisions will be made simply because there is a consensus on an issue or ‘experts’ agree on it. It’s necessary for any democracy constantly challenge its ideas and policies to make sure they are the best possible decision rather than one made through groupthink.

4 Comments

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.

3 Comments