Groupthink - Revision history

Jukeboksi: Category:Wiki psychology Category:Wiki governance fix old broken hardcoded Special:Whatlinkshere

2005-05-29T20:34:00Z

Category:Wiki psychology Category:Wiki governance fix old broken hardcoded Special:Whatlinkshere

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:34, 29 May 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[Category:Wiki psychology]] [[Category:Wiki governance]]
	'''Groupthink''' is a very well-documented psychological tendency of humans to tend to agree with each other, and hold back objections or dissent even when it is obvious to them that the group is moving strongly in a very wrong direction.		'''Groupthink''' is a very well-documented psychological tendency of humans to tend to agree with each other, and hold back objections or dissent even when it is obvious to them that the group is moving strongly in a very wrong direction.

Line 5:		Line 6:
	Groupthink is sometimes misleadingly referred as [[community values]]: there are no "community values". [[Community\|Communities]] are compromises of values created to achieve bodily protections. The community shares no values other than protecting its own bodies.		Groupthink is sometimes misleadingly referred as [[community values]]: there are no "community values". [[Community\|Communities]] are compromises of values created to achieve bodily protections. The community shares no values other than protecting its own bodies.

	This is relevant to [[Consumerium]] in many ways, see [http://~~www~~.consumerium.org/~~wiki~~/~~wiki~~.~~phtml~~?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Groupthink what links here]		This is relevant to [[Consumerium]] in many ways, see [http://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Groupthink what links here]

	One way to control groupthink is to steer it into [[faction]]s that can at least have sharp differences with each other. In [[democracy]] this means dividing into [[political party]] structures that debate the actual policy while a [[bureaucracy]] implements the policy only of the [[ruling party]].		One way to control groupthink is to steer it into [[faction]]s that can at least have sharp differences with each other. In [[democracy]] this means dividing into [[political party]] structures that debate the actual policy while a [[bureaucracy]] implements the policy only of the [[ruling party]].

Jukeboksi: moving the "discussion" to talk page here

2004-07-21T18:59:25Z

moving the "discussion" to talk page here

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 21 July 2004
Line 8:		Line 8:

	One way to control groupthink is to steer it into [[faction]]s that can at least have sharp differences with each other. In [[democracy]] this means dividing into [[political party]] structures that debate the actual policy while a [[bureaucracy]] implements the policy only of the [[ruling party]].		One way to control groupthink is to steer it into [[faction]]s that can at least have sharp differences with each other. In [[democracy]] this means dividing into [[political party]] structures that debate the actual policy while a [[bureaucracy]] implements the policy only of the [[ruling party]].

	: ''It is doubtable that [[faction]]s are a cure for the groupthink sickness. Groupthink in factions seems worse than in communities because of the need 2 sharpen differences in the competitive situation. -- T2R''

	::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.

	::: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. T permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.

	::ok so [[representative democracy]] has problems including bad border choices - yes ''moron'' is used as an argument especially by [[trolls]] who learned it from the [[sysop power structure]] that first called them that. and this is not a "place" it is a [[wiki]]. Yes different opinions are welcome but you most not expect politeness.

	::: Who expects politeness? I expect nothing. U R just hurting yourself. Is taking bad habits from sysops an argument? Will U apply sysop vandalism here, just because U learned it from them? Isn't wiki a place, a public place? Don't U derive your rights from this fact?

62.46.178.129 at 09:50, 21 July 2004

2004-07-21T09:50:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:50, 21 July 2004
Line 15:		Line 15:
	::: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. T permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.		::: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. T permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.

	::::ok so [[representative democracy]] has problems including bad border choices - yes ''moron'' is used as an argument especially by [[trolls]] who learned it from the [[sysop power structure]] that first called them that. and this is not a "place" it is a [[wiki]]. Yes different opinions are welcome but you most not expect politeness.		::ok so [[representative democracy]] has problems including bad border choices - yes ''moron'' is used as an argument especially by [[trolls]] who learned it from the [[sysop power structure]] that first called them that. and this is not a "place" it is a [[wiki]]. Yes different opinions are welcome but you most not expect politeness.

			::: Who expects politeness? I expect nothing. U R just hurting yourself. Is taking bad habits from sysops an argument? Will U apply sysop vandalism here, just because U learned it from them? Isn't wiki a place, a public place? Don't U derive your rights from this fact?

142.177.103.123 at 07:09, 21 July 2004

2004-07-21T07:09:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:09, 21 July 2004
Line 15:		Line 15:
	::: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. T permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.		::: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. T permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.

	::::ok so [[representative democracy]] has problems including bad border choices - ~~but~~ yes ''moron'' is used as an argument especially by [[trolls]] who learned it from the [[sysop power structure]] that first called them that		::::ok so [[representative democracy]] has problems including bad border choices - yes ''moron'' is used as an argument especially by [[trolls]] who learned it from the [[sysop power structure]] that first called them that. and this is not a "place" it is a [[wiki]]. Yes different opinions are welcome but you most not expect politeness.

142.177.103.123: yes indeed

2004-07-21T07:08:15Z

yes indeed

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:08, 21 July 2004
Line 13:		Line 13:
	::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.		::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.

	: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. T permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.		::: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. T permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.

			::::ok so [[representative democracy]] has problems including bad border choices - but yes ''moron'' is used as an argument especially by [[trolls]] who learned it from the [[sysop power structure]] that first called them that

62.46.164.54 at 07:43, 20 July 2004

2004-07-20T07:43:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:43, 20 July 2004
Line 13:		Line 13:
	::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.		::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.

	: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. ~~The~~ permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.		: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. T permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.

62.46.164.54 at 07:42, 20 July 2004

2004-07-20T07:42:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 20 July 2004
Line 13:		Line 13:
	::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.		::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.

	: Is ''moron'' an argument here in this place? In competition factions define themselves by a ~~mix~~ of equivalence and negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. The conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory.		: Is ''moron'' used as an argument here in this place? Are different opinions not welcome? In competition factions define themselves by a lot of equivalence and a bit of negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. The permanent conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory and 2 avoid attacking T hard problems.

62.46.164.54 at 07:31, 20 July 2004

2004-07-20T07:31:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:31, 20 July 2004
Line 13:		Line 13:
	::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.		::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.

	: Is ''moron'' an argument here ~~around~~? In competition factions define themselves by a mix of equivalence and negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. The conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory.		: Is ''moron'' an argument here in this place? In competition factions define themselves by a mix of equivalence and negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. The conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory.

212.186.192.182 at 06:49, 20 July 2004

2004-07-20T06:49:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:49, 20 July 2004
Line 12:		Line 12:

	::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.		::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.

			: Is ''moron'' an argument here around? In competition factions define themselves by a mix of equivalence and negation. There R very rarely new ideas 2 solve existing problems. The conflict enforces redrawing 2 save territory.

142.177.97.230: refuting obvious stupidity: factions work because they are smaller, and inter-faction conflict has rules

2004-07-20T00:33:20Z

refuting obvious stupidity: factions work because they are smaller, and inter-faction conflict has rules

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 20 July 2004
Line 10:		Line 10:

	: ''It is doubtable that [[faction]]s are a cure for the groupthink sickness. Groupthink in factions seems worse than in communities because of the need 2 sharpen differences in the competitive situation. -- T2R''		: ''It is doubtable that [[faction]]s are a cure for the groupthink sickness. Groupthink in factions seems worse than in communities because of the need 2 sharpen differences in the competitive situation. -- T2R''

			::It only seems worse to morons: factions are smaller than the larger group they are trying to steer, and since they are forced to accept some rules on how they compete with each other to do that steering, you have more acceptance of reciprocity and equality of factions (trying "insider vs. outsider" for unfair treatment!), and smaller groups that are at least capable of seeing how their biases fit together.