{"id":1480,"date":"2018-06-30T04:52:50","date_gmt":"2018-06-30T04:52:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=1480"},"modified":"2019-07-27T16:56:40","modified_gmt":"2019-07-27T16:56:40","slug":"group-thinking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/sociocultural-issues\/group-thinking","title":{"rendered":"Group Thinking"},"content":{"rendered":"

The French term \u2018pens\u00e9e unique\u2019 is frequently used for what is actually \u2018pens\u00e9e de groupe\u2019 (group thinking). This is a human inclination with dire consequences but which can be overcome through proper support and personal effort.<\/h3>\n

This is related to a quite natural human inclination.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"In many cases, your brain (thus: you) doesn\u2019t readily like ambiguity. See for instance the \u2018old lady \u2013 young lady\u2019 image: you consciously see either the one or the other. Seeing both at the same time is difficult. It\u2019s interesting to try. Another example from the visual sphere: the \u2018Necker cube\u2019. You flip-flop between what is foreground and background.\"\"<\/p>\n

Why exactly your brain (thus: you) does this?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From the viewpoint of underlying \u2018subconceptual\u2019 neuronal patterns, what probably happens is that when patterns are relatively close to each other, each uses self-enhancement of neuronal connections (at synaptic level) while other connections are actively being \u2018inhibited\u2019. The general principle is: \u2018neurons that fire together, wire together\u2019 (this is: form a pattern, firing together next time). Inhibition serves to make patterns stand out even more clearly. Thus, if one pattern makes it to the top (possibly becoming conscious this way), others effectively lose. So:<\/p>\n

The winner takes it all?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Probably. It\u2019s still a hypothesis, though it sounds credible indeed.<\/p>\n

So, we humans have this \u2018weakness\u2019 \u2013 also being a strength, functionally speaking \u2013 at least in the visual field. Let\u2019s take a huge leap:<\/p>\n

Is the same applicable to, for instance, politics?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I think so.<\/p>\n

In case of politics, there may be a huge number of patterns at play. Then again, behind them all and engendering them, there may also lie a select set of patterns, or even one. In any case, the same principle is at least possible<\/em> at this much broader scale.<\/p>\n

Very broad group thinking versus not so very broad.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One sees the latter in identity politics<\/em>\u00a0[see: \u2018From Identity Politics to Utopia<\/a>\u2019], the former in a divide between progressives<\/em> and conservatives<\/em>. Might this be related to how an individual brain preferably structures its own patterns? Note in this respect a clearly genetic factor in \u2018the political brain\u2019. We do not know yet how far this goes or what it exactly leads to.<\/p>\n

So, what to do?<\/strong><\/p>\n

If I am right in that \u2018group thinking\u2019 is a natural human inclination, then it will not suffice to just try to counter it by showing a certain group (usually the adversarial one) to be \u2018guilty by smoking\u2019. Indeed, this accusation itself is a common characteristic of group thinking. More action is needed.<\/p>\n

Yet it\u2019s interesting to do the effort because this is very much about the practice of \u2018Us versus Them\u2019, leading frequently to a lot of aggression, from verbal to\u00a0war [see: \u2018In-Group Creates Out-Group?<\/a>\u2019].<\/p>\n

Is tolerating ambiguity the answer?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No, well, maybe\u2026 According to me, it\u2019s the first part of the answer. Without tolerating ambiguity at the start<\/em>, one quickly falls into group thinking. While a nice endeavor is to diminish ambiguity, an equally nice one is to let it do its job. Since, as we saw, the brain doesn\u2019t like it, this creates energy (deep motivation). The trick is then to use this energy towards further critical thinking, NOT towards group thinking. The latter is easier but it\u2019s precisely NOT critical.<\/p>\n

Research fact: give progressives and conservatives a story with ambiguous evidence for both directions and they will each harden their own standpoint. This is group thinking in action, pseudo-rationalizing away ambiguity.<\/p>\n

The real goal is critical thinking.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Group thinking is eventually bad inasmuch as it inhibits critical thinking. To do the latter \u2013 in group \u2013 one needs at least a good way to dialogue. For some broad ideas about it:<\/p>\n