Talk:Groupthink

Pearl Harbour reasoning

The section on Pearl Harbour concludes with "At the end of the day, the leading officers at Pearl Harbor reinforced each other's feeling of invulnerability and it is the reason why the United States was defenseless against Japan's attacks." I think that this is inadequately cited, and something about just reads weirdly. The conclusion is badly supported and doesn't have much in the way of reasoning. Anyone got any ideas for improvement? 140.200.7.162 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

groupthink and narcissism

i think that groupthink is just a manifestation of narcissism or more specifically group narcissism. But narcissism doesnt even get a mention here. Narcissists create and impose their own narcissistic cultures on others with their own rules which gullible sheeple blindly conform to. Another aspect is peer pressure.--Penbat (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of controversy where there should be some

The implication of the term is that what is called thinking is inextricably linked with being an individual, the term has no force without the implication that a group cannot think. However this is not established. because what is called thinking is less than clear itself. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont properly understand what you are saying but ref my previous comment i think groups are often controlled by a single narcissistic leader who makes the rules.--Penbat (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint would seem to be a special (possibly simplistic, unerudite) special case. Your variant I take it has it that because a group cannot think, a single thinker must come to exercise the function and somehow that always results in a cult of personality or whatever ("human nature" I presume). I take it in particular that you are not referring to a group equivalent of the psychological concept of narcissism which becomes focused on a single individual who expresses the simple minded concept of that term himself as a character. Cause that would be whack. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, see that it is not. First "groupthink" is not a concept on a par with "group narcissism" as defined by Fromm, but rather a popularly originated term referring to a lack of critical thinking in individuals in organizations. I wasn't referring to your thread but to the subject of the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Janis quotes

Janis is quoted twice here, and both quotes are exactly the same. Seems to clutter the intro, so I think it should be taken out of the intro and remain where it is in the body. 70.225.139.227 (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Janis' quote is the only thing worthwhile on the whole page. To say the page is a "crap" page of questionable value is to over-value it.184.7.110.25 (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

I don't have the source handy, but in the quote in the last section, I would think "... emphasis on intense-high status group cohesion... " should be "... emphasis on intense high-status group cohesion... " Reelrt (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Example?

The intro says that groupthink is "a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion" without mentioning what the first one is. What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.15.210 (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete reference

One of the footnotes mentions Myers, but there is no full citation. I assume this is one of David Myers' textbooks, but we need the full details of the book. Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Higher education

See this edit: [1]. The Chronicle of Higher Education is of course not a primary source.Miradre (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

True enough. A single brief secondary source still doesn't present enough sources to merit an entire section devoted to propagating your POV. aprock (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A single sentence is hardly undue. Other areas also receive a section. The sources are WP:RS. I will add more. Please do not delete well-sourced material even if it does not fit with a particular POV.Miradre (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh. You're the one running from article to article trying to push a single POV, not me. aprock (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You have followed me to numerous articles you have never edited before and objected to my edits. So any accusations of POV would apply as well to you. I see you have no actual arguments against inclusion of a single sentence in this article.Miradre (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument is above. Your willful disregard of it is irrelevant. Your accusations of POV pushing are nothing less than hypocritical. And if you feel like you need to continue accusing me of pushing a POV, by all means bring it to a noticeboard. Otherwise, discuss the objections that have already been forwarded. aprock (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source. New York Times: [2]Miradre (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, economists were not experts in groupthink. You're confusing colorful language with reliable sourcing. aprock (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing that the NYT is not a WP:RS? Miradre (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article was co-authored by a sociologist.Miradre (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is yet another secondary source: [3] Miradre (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Another article about what economists think about psychology. Thanks for nothing. aprock (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, Charlotta Stern Stern is a sociologist. Not an economist.Miradre (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet another source. Washington Post this time: [4] Miradre (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ *sigh* A source quoting a conservative think tank. Your continued misrepresentation of sources here is tiresome. These all look like great sources for Higher education in the United States. Why don't you take your crusade back there for a while. aprock (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A conservative think thank is of course not automatically excluded. I have mentioned numerous other sources and research arguing for the same. All of these sources mention groupthink as a cause for the liberal overrepresentation. Here is yet another: [5]. As such ample material have been presented for a brief mention in this article.Miradre (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've used google to find yet another source that includes the word "groupthink" in the body of the article. Let me know when you find an article that is actually about groupthink, as opposed to just throwing around the term loosely. Cheers. aprock (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what policies you are referring to? Could you link to them and give quotes for whatever you are claiming? Most of the secondary sources refer to academic studies about groupthink which are certainly primarily about the topic. All the sources certainly support the claim that groupthink is one proposed explanation for the liberal overrepresentation. A such a sentence in this article is certainly justified.Miradre (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You might read WP:COMMON. Using a source about one thing (liberal bias) to justify inclusion of content in an article about another thing (groupthink) makes no sense. Unfortunately for your efforts at pushing your POV, it seems that your google searchers are finding very few sources about groupthink. aprock (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You cannot find any policies supporting your deletions so you cite WP:COMMON? All the sources cite groupthink as a possible cause for the liberal overrepresentation in higher education.Miradre (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If common sense isn't something that holds any currency with you, the discussion is through. You are free to seek out a third opinion if you like (see WP:3O). aprock (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it is common sense to mention liberal overrepresenation in higher education as a possible area where groupthink is possible in the groupthink article since numerous sources state this. Hopefully adding the numerous sources to the article will convince you.Miradre (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, until you find an article about groupthink you're likely to get nowhere. Finding articles which use the term loosely a single time aren't going to cut it. aprock (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, what policy are you citing? Quote and link, please. There is certainly no policy that one is only allowed to cite sources with certain words in the title or something similar. All the secondary sources refer to primary sources dealing with groupthink in higher education as reason for liberal overrepresentation.Miradre (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We can also look at for example this article title "Liberal 'Groupthink' Puts Professors at Odds With Most Americans, Report Says[6] Miradre (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, touting of a self published primary source written by people who aren't trained in a related field. It looks like you're going to have to seek out that third opinion. I'm through sifting through your misrepresentations. aprock (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that they are not trained for the research they are doing? Source please. "Self-published" is dubious to material produced by an organization. Is material from Greenpeace or the Democratic Party prohibited? Notability is established by use in secondary sources.Miradre (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that they are not trained for the research they are doing? Source please. The source? "About the authors", page 82 of the report. Sometimes it helps to read the sources being discussed. aprock (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See nothing making them unsuitable. This is of course also only one report. I have cited numerous other sources all stating that groupthink is one possible cause of the liberal overrepresenation in higher education.Miradre (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ See nothing making them unsuitable. Yes, your inability to wield common sense has been repeatedly demonstrated. aprock (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You have given no explanation for why they should be unsuitable and regardless such opinions are OR unless you have a sourced criticism. I repeat that this is just one of numerous sources.Miradre (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I've tried to bow out of this silliness several times. This will be my final comment until you can get an outside opinion. There is just no reason for me to go around and around with someone who clearly has no regard for common sense, to the point of saying as much on the talk page. Good luck. fin. aprock (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As stated, I will make a final attempt by providing all the numerous sources in a citation. If this does not convince you we will have to try something else.Miradre (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion here: I'm satisfied with Miradre's sourcing and the content should be included. Trying to dimiss this with WP:COMMON isn't going to work. Right about now your argument seems to be based on WP:IDONTLIKE. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Lionel, Which source would you say makes the best case for inclusion? aprock (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Groupthink Sources

Here are the sources:

• "Groupthink in Academia: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid." Daniel B. Klein, Charlotta Stern, Pp. 79–98 in The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms, edited by Robert Maranto, Richard Redding, and Frederick Hess. 2009. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
• Liberal 'Groupthink' Puts Professors at Odds With Most Americans, Report Says, Chronicle of Higher Education, Robin Wilson, October 19, 2006. https://chronicle.com/article/Liberal-Groupthink-Puts/119297/
• The Left-Leaning Tower, John Tierny, The New York Times, July 22, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edl-24notebook-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
• Why So Few Conservative And Libertarian Professors?, Education News, Daniel B. Klein, August 1, 2010. http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/opinions_on_education/38325.html
• Va. attorney general off to rocky start with state colleges, Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post, May 23, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052101777.html
• A left-wing monopoly on campuses, Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, December 2, 2004, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/02/a_left_wing_monopoly_on_campuses/

Miradre (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

comments

• first source is a self published report from a libertarian think tank
• the second source discusses a self published report from a Jewish research center
• the third source quotes the economist who wrote the first source
• the fourth source is an Op-Ed written by the author of the first source
• the fifth source isn't about groupthink
• the sixth source isn't about groupthink

So, what you have here are two self published reports by special interest institutes, some minor secondary sources mentioning them, an op-ed by one of the authors, and a couple of articles that use the word groupthink in a non-academic manner. I appreciate that these are the sort of sources that you value, but they are clearly undue for this article. As noted above, some of these sources may be appropriate for other articles, notably one directly dealing with left/right bias. aprock (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In order to be included, opinions should be notable and we should be able to explain their degree of acceptance. The views on academia appear to be WP:FRINGE. TFD (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Reports from organizations are not necessarily unreliable. Or do we exclude reports by Greenpeace or the Democratic party automatically? Notability established in secondary sources. Aprock misleads regarding the first source which is written by both an economist and a sociologist. New York Times and Washington Post are of course excellent secondary sources and not "minor". Both the fifth and the sixth sources mentions groupthink as an explanation for liberal overrepresentation in higher education, there is no requirement in a policy that a claim should be the only focus in a source.Miradre (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first source it has also appeared in a peer-reviewed journal: The Independent Review, Spring 2009.[7]Miradre (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That is how they describe themselves, but they publish articles that mainstream academic journals would not. (Hence the complaint about "groupthink" in academia.) I do not see that the opinions expressed in the article have any significance. If the Greenpeace or Democratic Party websites posted an article about groupthink in some organization, we probably would not include it here either. Please see WP:WEIGHT. RS is also an issue if we use the article as a primary source for the author's opinions. TFD (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"they publish articles that mainstream academic journals would not." Any source for that claim? The New York Times, Washington Post, and the Boston Globe are of course excellent WP:RS. As is the Chronicle of Higher Education. EducationNews looks good also.Miradre (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is not an issue of rs but of WP:WEIGHT. Why do you think that this opinion is so important it should be mentioned in the article. Can you please provide a source that explains the degree of acceptance this view has received. TFD (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The views are mentioned in major newspapers and specialized newspapers for this area. Wikipedia does of course not aim to to establish the "truth" on an issue. NPOV means all significant view should be mentioned, not just some single "accepted" view.Miradre (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can show that it has gained acceptance, as opposed to merely having been reported, it cannot be considered a significant view. TFD (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy requirement of having to prove "acceptance". Only significance. A view reported in major newspapers as well as academic studies is significant.Miradre (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It has not been reported in any academic studies and has received only trivial newspaper coverage. Any serious article about Groupthink would ignore it. If it has no acceptance then it has no significance. TFD (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

New York Times, Washington Post, and the Boston Globe are of course excellent WP:RS. As is the Chronicle of Higher Education. EducationNews looks good also. This view has been published in peer-reviewed journals: "Groupthink in Academia: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid." Daniel B. Klein, Charlotta Stern, The Independent Review, Spring 2009.Miradre (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

IOW it has received minimal notice including none in the academic press and has had zero influence on the subject. If you find a recent book about Groupthink that mentions the article and we could consider including it. TFD (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I have already cited one peer-reviewed article. It has in turn been cited by many other academic works. I fail to see how you can claim minimal notice when this view is mentioned in many major newspapers as well as specialized newspaper for eduction.Miradre (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the groupthink theory has been argued in several other papers by Klein and Stern.[8][9] Miradre (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You have cited zero peer-reviewed articles and zero cites in other academic works. Yes thinktanks do a fantastic job of getting fringe views covered in mainstream media, but you have no shown any serious attention. Even for the fringe that may accept this article, it is much more likely to influence their view of academia than of their view of groupthink theory. TFD (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zero? I have now cited 3 peer-reviewed papers: [10][11][12]. As well as several major newspapers and specialized education newspapers.Miradre (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, even those in the academic literature who give other explanations for the liberal overrepresentation discuss the groupthink theory.Miradre (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see the theory discussed in academic papers by critics who refer to some of the peer-reviewed papers above, see for example: [13]Miradre (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is yet another source. A literature review of groupthink theory applications: [14]. Miradre (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(out) Your final source is good, because it is an academic journal. Here is what it says, "Other applications ...the groupthink concept continues to see broad application.... [It] has been applied to juries and hockey teams. Ko described how Chinese culture affects groupthink. Klein and Stern (2009) drew an interesting parallel between groupthink and academia". (Rose, p. 47) Essentially it has been ignored - it merits one sentence in a 20 page review of the literature and is described as "interesting". TFD (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned also at page 48 in Table 7 "Applications of Groupthink": "Academia breeding form of groupthink." So it is mentioned twice and accepted as an application. No criticism. I have also still cited 3 other peer-reviewed sources: [15][16][17]. As well as several major newspapers and special newspapers for education.Miradre (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The table lists all the "other applications" mentioned on p. 47. The essay is trivial to the subject of "groupthink". Klein and Stern are mentioned not because they contributed to our understanding of groupthink, but as a curiosity. None of the other articles that cite them are about groupthink. TFD (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The literature review of Groupthink is just that. There is no claim that the application of the theory to academia is "trivial" or a "curiosity". There is no criticism regarding the application to academia. It is described as one application among many in table 7 which is called "Applications of Groupthink".

There is no requirement that "Groupthink" must appear in the title in order to use it as a source. All the 3 peer-reviewed articles I listed argue that Groupthink is one explanation for the liberal overrepresentation in higher education. As do the major newspaper and specialized newspaper for education I have already cited.Miradre (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The literature review explains the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the literature review criticizes the research or states that it is insignificant. It is mentioned as one application among many others.Miradre (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the literature review criticizes the research because it is insignificant. TFD (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not stated either. Please avoid OR and unsourced claims.Miradre (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We have to determine weight, that is not OR. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." How prominent do you think a paper is that warrants a one sentence mention in a 20 page review of the literature? Do you think that means this one page article should devote any attention to it? TFD (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is not only mentioned once. It gets about the same coverage as other applications of groupthink theory.Miradre (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, peer-reviewed papers and newspapers are of course reliable sources of which I have presented numerous.Miradre (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You may talk about it with other editors at NPOVN.[18] Note that being reliably sourced and deserving weight are two different things. I can find a reliable source for example for the fact I graduated high school, but it does not mean it belongs in this article. TFD (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I will add all the sources to the article in the hope of convincing those doubting.Miradre (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.Miradre (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Still only a passing mention. This has been discussed above in detail by both Aprock and TFD. There is no reason to discuss this interminably. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously not just a passing mention when it has been discussed in academic papers, major newspapers, and specialized education newspapers. I have asked for outside opinions at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Groupthink_in_higher_education.Miradre (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are still totally unconvincing to me. I agree with Aprock and The Four Deuces. Sorry, Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I fear you may oppose just because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I have asked for outside opinions.Miradre (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The reasons given by Aprock and TFD do not need to be repeated (please read them again). Your posting on WP:NPOVN is the second posting about this article as TFD already posted (see above). Sorry, Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not see his extremely biased and inadequate presentation of the sources we are discussing. He only mentions a single source! The new section presents them correctly.Miradre (talk)

Criticisms and recent development section

This article seems to be a copy-paste of an undergraduate level literature review. There are a lot of great sources cited, but the presentation is poor.

Suggestions: -condense the article: remove the excessive sub-topics and synthesize the data presented in them with each other to improve readability -fix the numerous citation errors (missing sources, improper citation) -eliminate weasel words -rewrite the article using a less conversational tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndividualHerd (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

resource

The Rise of the New Groupthink OPINION by SUSAN CAIN published NYT January 13, 2012 99.181.142.231 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)