Really OT!

Is it possible to link groupthink religious organizations?

Op

"Opus" wrote ...
Is it possible to link groupthink religious organizations?

hmmm.....

Do you mean within one particular group? If so, I'd say yes in most cases,
excepting the cult-types (but have fun defining 'cult'.) I think that many
religions fall into the staid, monotypic "our way or the highway" way of
thinking, at least at the superficial level. Answering whether or not that
thinking continues once out of the church environs would require further
reading on my part. Dunno, but I'm inclined (in my cynical view of organized
religion) to believe that much of the discourse that makes up modern
American religiosity ain't much more than a bunch-o-hooey designed to make
the purveyor of said hooey look good for the neighbors.

If you mean "can all religions be put under a 'groupthink' banner?" or "do
all religions think the same way?".... well, that one seems a bit trickier,
and I suppose implies that religions are, at least at some level, all the
same. That level, I would probably argue, is somewhere in the realm of
'controlling' or 'dominating' for the purpose of maintaining some semblance
of social/class/gender/whatever hegemony and stasis. But this ain't my line
of study, so that's not much more than a few rambling sentences.....

Interesting question...

Dan

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 23:22:59 -0400, "Opus--Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

Is it possible to link groupthink religious organizations?

I think you need to enable your own strategic vision and drill down to
the paradigm shift to see if there is any synergy....

Anything is _possible_...what's important is what's amusing...

HTH,
R



Op

"Daniel-San" (Rot13) wrote in message
. net...

"Opus" wrote ...
Is it possible to link groupthink religious organizations?

hmmm.....

Do you mean within one particular group? If so, I'd say yes in most cases,
excepting the cult-types (but have fun defining 'cult'.) I think that many
religions fall into the staid, monotypic "our way or the highway" way of
thinking, at least at the superficial level. Answering whether or not that
thinking continues once out of the church environs would require further
reading on my part. Dunno, but I'm inclined (in my cynical view of
organized religion) to believe that much of the discourse that makes up
modern American religiosity ain't much more than a bunch-o-hooey designed
to make the purveyor of said hooey look good for the neighbors.

If you mean "can all religions be put under a 'groupthink' banner?" or "do
all religions think the same way?".... well, that one seems a bit
trickier, and I suppose implies that religions are, at least at some
level, all the same. That level, I would probably argue, is somewhere in
the realm of 'controlling' or 'dominating' for the purpose of maintaining
some semblance of social/class/gender/whatever hegemony and stasis. But
this ain't my line of study, so that's not much more than a few rambling
sentences.....

Interesting question...

Dan

I realized after I had sent the post that I hadn't made myself clear.

I was referring mainly to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and yes I mean
the religion itself and not specific instances.

According to Irving Janis' 8 symptoms, each of the 3 aforementioned
religions manifest these symptoms, so I was wondeing if they could be
considered products of groupthink. I mean, so-called cults are said to be
products of groupthing, so why not major religious organizations?

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:
1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages
taking extreme risks.



2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not
reconsider their assumptions.



3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their
cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their
decisions.



4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make
effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.



5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express
arguments against any of the group’s views.



6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group
consensus are not expressed.

Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be
unanimous.



7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed
to be unanimous.



8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader
from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s
cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions



Op

"Opus" wrote ...

[...]

I was referring mainly to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and yes I mean
the religion itself and not specific instances.

According to Irving Janis' 8 symptoms, each of the 3 aforementioned
religions manifest these symptoms, so I was wondeing if they could be
considered products of groupthink. I mean, so-called cults are said to be
products of groupthing, so why not major religious organizations?

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:
1. Illusion of invulnerability -Creates excessive optimism that encourages
taking extreme risks.

In the case of "organized" religion(*), I'd have to say no to this one. IMO
(but willing to admit it if I;m proven wrong) most religions are quite
conservative and risk-averse.

(*) Again, excepting any "cults" or the really whacky suicidal-types.
Although, I suppose that in their belief system, the suicide guarantees some
sort of salvation, therefore obviating any risk, extreme or otherwise.





2. Collective rationalization - Members discount warnings and do not
reconsider their assumptions.

External warnings or internal (i.e. from whatever "holy" text they use?)
Internal warnings millennial events, etc are probably celebrated as
faith- or doctrine- supporting. External warnings, dunno. ?





3. Belief in inherent morality - Members believe in the rightness of their
cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their
decisions.


Absolutely.Almost by very definition.




4. Stereotyped views of out-groups - Negative views of "enemy" make
effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

Yep, much like today's political "discourse" is little more than a bunch of
binarily-opposed tropes being flung around like monkey **** at the zoo, I
believe that most religions take the "us v. them" approach. As in, "we're
saved because of X, Y, and/or Z. You, on the other hand, worshippers of the
pagan flying spaghetti monster, are ****ed."





5. Direct pressure on dissenters - Members are under pressure not to
express arguments against any of the group's views.

Oh, yeah... nothing like a threat of eternal damnation to keep the troops in
line.




6. Self-censorship - Doubts and deviations from the perceived group
consensus are not expressed.

I have no evidence, but I'm inclined to say yes on this one.



Illusion of unanimity - The majority view and judgments are assumed to be
unanimous.



7. Illusion of unanimity - The majority view and judgments are assumed
to be unanimous.


Again, I have no evidence (nor research) but I'm inclined to say yes here as
well.



8. Self-appointed 'mindguards' - Members protect the group and the leader
from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group's
cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions


This one's a little more problematic. In many religions, the leader is the
sole disseminator of info to the flock. IMO/IME it's a one-way street with
the flock merely standing, kneeling and spilling cash into the plate as
directed, rather than be involved in any sort of discourse dogma or
ritual. Luther tried. His ass got kicked out.

Again, interesting question. Not one that comes up much in the history
depts. Perhaps it should.

Dan

I'm not very familiar at all with "groupthink" but it came up in class the
other night and got me to thinking sideways.

Likely there are other explanations for folks following any particular
religion and how they will act as part of the group.

Anyway, I was just fishin' for insight, since I won't get to hit the stream
until May.

Thanks Dan!

Op


"Daniel-San" (Rot13) wrote in message
t...

"Opus" wrote ...

[...]

I was referring mainly to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and yes I
mean the religion itself and not specific instances.

According to Irving Janis' 8 symptoms, each of the 3 aforementioned
religions manifest these symptoms, so I was wondeing if they could be
considered products of groupthink. I mean, so-called cults are said to
be products of groupthing, so why not major religious organizations?

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:
1. Illusion of invulnerability -Creates excessive optimism that
encourages taking extreme risks.

In the case of "organized" religion(*), I'd have to say no to this one.
IMO (but willing to admit it if I;m proven wrong) most religions are quite
conservative and risk-averse.

(*) Again, excepting any "cults" or the really whacky suicidal-types.
Although, I suppose that in their belief system, the suicide guarantees
some sort of salvation, therefore obviating any risk, extreme or
otherwise.





2. Collective rationalization - Members discount warnings and do not
reconsider their assumptions.

External warnings or internal (i.e. from whatever "holy" text they use?)
Internal warnings millennial events, etc are probably celebrated as
faith- or doctrine- supporting. External warnings, dunno. ?





3. Belief in inherent morality - Members believe in the rightness of
their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of
their decisions.


Absolutely.Almost by very definition.




4. Stereotyped views of out-groups - Negative views of "enemy" make
effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

Yep, much like today's political "discourse" is little more than a bunch
of binarily-opposed tropes being flung around like monkey **** at the zoo,
I believe that most religions take the "us v. them" approach. As in,
"we're saved because of X, Y, and/or Z. You, on the other hand,
worshippers of the pagan flying spaghetti monster, are ****ed."





5. Direct pressure on dissenters - Members are under pressure not to
express arguments against any of the group's views.

Oh, yeah... nothing like a threat of eternal damnation to keep the troops
in line.




6. Self-censorship - Doubts and deviations from the perceived group
consensus are not expressed.

I have no evidence, but I'm inclined to say yes on this one.



Illusion of unanimity - The majority view and judgments are assumed to be
unanimous.



7. Illusion of unanimity - The majority view and judgments are assumed
to be unanimous.


Again, I have no evidence (nor research) but I'm inclined to say yes here
as well.



8. Self-appointed 'mindguards' - Members protect the group and the leader
from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group's
cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions


This one's a little more problematic. In many religions, the leader is the
sole disseminator of info to the flock. IMO/IME it's a one-way street with
the flock merely standing, kneeling and spilling cash into the plate as
directed, rather than be involved in any sort of discourse dogma or
ritual. Luther tried. His ass got kicked out.

Again, interesting question. Not one that comes up much in the history
depts. Perhaps it should.

Dan