Birds of a Feather

"Where all think alike, no one thinks very much."

- Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), American editor, writer

Columnist Shaunti Feldhahn has written an interesting op-ed for the Atlanta Journal Constitution titled "Let's Rethink Dangerous 'Groupthink'." Her inspiration for this column grew out of a reader's comment about something she'd said about President Bush in an earlier piece that you can find here. 

In the "Groupthink" column, Feldhahn points out how most of us tend to associate with those who think as we do and warns that this can lead to inattention to opposing points of view. A lack of consideration for the "devil's advocate,"  particularly by those in positions of power, often leads to less than optimal decision-making: 

"It's natural to surround ourselves with those who agree with us. But it's also dangerous. Thirty years ago, Yale University social psychologist Irving Janis coined the term "groupthink" to describe why people in cohesive groups sometimes make poor decisions. Consider how eerily familiar his eight symptoms of groupthink look today, for those on both sides of the political divide: an illusion of invulnerability, an unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, collective rationalization of group decisions, shared stereotypes of opponents, members of the group censoring themselves and withholding criticism, the resulting illusion of unanimity, a pressure on dissenters to conform, and the emergence of self-appointed 'mindguards' to block negative information."

She sees the greatest risks of groupthink occurring "where the consequences are most severe," places like government and media institutions where decisions are being made that will "affect and influence others for generations to come." She suggests that both the Bush administration and the potential Kerry administration seem to be promoting one-sided inclinations rather than seeking out and actually considering dissenting opinions.

I think Ms. Feldhahn is right on the money. I know that I'm guilty of holding points of view that mirror those of most of my friends. When we're together, as we were this past weekend, we all agree that our view of the world is the one that makes the most sense. We do so with great enthusiasm and with little fear that anyone will throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings. Anyone who does is quickly put in his place.

While I do have friends who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, it's rare that we get into meaningful discussions of our differences. We choose, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid the controversial topics like politics and talk instead about our families, our golf game or the obituaries--all more socially acceptable subjects.

There are exceptions, of course, but generally we try to "keep the peace." That's okay I suppose, but I would prefer that it be different, that we could agree to disagree and still be friends. Perhaps tomorrow I'll give my most staunchly Democratic buddy a call and see if he'd be willing to have breakfast for the specific purpose of discussing Kerry and Bush and the direction they want to take our country. I wouldn't be surprised if he hangs up on me. Nah, he probably won't, but I'll bet he'll be reluctant to engage in the proposed breakfast agenda. Maybe not. Maybe he'll give me an unexpected "yes." I can hope, can't I?

At any rate, I think you'll enjoy what Feldhahn has to say. Unfortunately, the Atlanta Journal Constitution requires you to register (it's free) in order to read Ms. Feldhahn's columns. Sorry for the hassle.

Update: Here's the link to the New York Times Daniel Okrent editorial to which Ms. Feldhahn refers. I highly recommend it.