Page 1 of 6 [ 78 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,788
Location: Oz

23 Jan 2019, 4:40 pm

Is "groupthink" a significant factor here?...

Quote:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink


_________________
I'm a thinker. Some think I'm a stinker. Pepe le Pew. ;)
Down with big business!...
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

23 Jan 2019, 6:10 pm

I thought it was the preponderance of evidence and the accord of like 99% of the world's scientific community that human-driven climate change is real and is happening to the earth. Is that groupthink, if everyone (who is qualified and studied on the subject) just looks at the evidence and agrees that it is pretty conclusive? Does that count as groupthink?



cemil
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

23 Jan 2019, 8:50 pm

ive never seen the real reports (in pdf format).. the reports themselves with all the graphs and formulars.. i hope they are understandable.. i downloaded the last paper from Hawking and i completely don't understand nor propably ever will .. they are definitely harder than 2+2=4.. i wish i could tell if they are true or not..



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,299

23 Jan 2019, 9:15 pm

Pepe wrote:
Is "groupthink" a significant factor here?...

Quote:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

No, it's just called consensus of informed scientific opinion.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,788
Location: Oz

24 Jan 2019, 5:17 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
I thought it was the preponderance of evidence and the accord of like 99% of the world's scientific community that human-driven climate change is real and is happening to the earth. Is that groupthink, if everyone (who is qualified and studied on the subject) just looks at the evidence and agrees that it is pretty conclusive? Does that count as groupthink?


Please read the following (It is from your link):

Quote:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Please note:
The quote from the NASA website is in variance to your submitted statement that: "I thought it was the preponderance of evidence and the accord of like 99% of the world's scientific community that human-driven climate change is real and is happening to the earth."

I am not referring to your 99% figure...
I am referring to your collective of the entire scientific community and the subset of scientists the NASA paper referred to...

I would like your comment on the following quote:
Quote:
What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.

Second, it is obvious that the “97%” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phoney claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article ... tists-many


_________________
I'm a thinker. Some think I'm a stinker. Pepe le Pew. ;)
Down with big business!...
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,788
Location: Oz

24 Jan 2019, 5:28 am

AspE wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Is "groupthink" a significant factor here?...

Quote:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

No, it's just called consensus of informed scientific opinion.


Let us apply my statement to the general population...
I have first-hand knowledge of people embracing a heuristic that could not be substantiated by them...
In essence, they simply applied "blind faith" to figures of perceived authority...
Is this not an aspect of groupthink?


_________________
I'm a thinker. Some think I'm a stinker. Pepe le Pew. ;)
Down with big business!...
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,788
Location: Oz

24 Jan 2019, 5:50 am

cemil wrote:
ive never seen the real reports (in pdf format).. the reports themselves with all the graphs and formulars.. i hope they are understandable.. i downloaded the last paper from Hawking and i completely don't understand nor propably ever will .. they are definitely harder than 2+2=4.. i wish i could tell if they are true or not..


I see this post as an example of someone who does *not* subscribe to groupthink...
I am in the same camp, atm, in regards to needing to understand the total picture in more detail...
It is,after all, a very complex subject and may involve other aspects such as hidden agendas which may include personal gain, political interference, etc...
In essence, I am fence sitting and refuse to be intimidated by those who embrace groupthink...


_________________
I'm a thinker. Some think I'm a stinker. Pepe le Pew. ;)
Down with big business!...
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,465
Location: Poland

24 Jan 2019, 6:33 am

It's actually extremely hard to escape groupthink on any issue, not just climate change. And it isn't restricted to this or that political agenda. There is lefist groupthink, rightist groupthink, religious groupthink, anti-religious groupthink... anythink.

I asked my friend who is atmosphere researcher, what do we really know on global warming.
She showed me some graphs with uncertainity bars often bigger than the results and said:
We know something. It looks like there is a global warming trend. The models trying to explain it are very uncertain - the system is too complex to be simulated without enormous simplifications. We don't really know all the factors. We're trying to gain more knowledge and understand it better. It's a lot of hard work. But journalists and politicians just want some "yes, we are certainly doomed" or "no, it's all fake", not our hard work on reducing errorbars.


_________________
Keep calm and choose your battles carefully.


HighLlama
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,235

24 Jan 2019, 6:41 am

Groupthink or not, it's worth looking into, because if we have to deal with global warming then the fallout could be pretty serious. The way we're approaching it is more like if you smelled smoke in your house, but decided not to investigate until the room you're in is actually on fire, because otherwise you'd have to get up and it might be a false alarm. Obviously, no one would be so careless in their home, so why do that with our planet? Besides, it's not like anyone really wants this to be true. People are concerned about survival.

Also, I'm not sure many deniers really don't believe in global warming. Certainly oil companies have been advised on it for decades. They feel it's in their interest to keep making money now, and maybe they can make money off of any disaster relief or solutions they could provide to global warming related problems.

Also, if we're going to discuss groupthink in relation to this, we should mention that "climate change" is a phrase invented by the second Bush administration to replace the more threatening sounding "global warming." That's kind of like calling torture "intermittent pleasure."


_________________
Unofficially human.


Piobaire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,347
Location: Smackass Gap, NC

magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,465
Location: Poland

24 Jan 2019, 7:08 am

Piobaire wrote:

Is everyone who has doubts a "denialist"?


_________________
Keep calm and choose your battles carefully.


Piobaire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,347
Location: Smackass Gap, NC

24 Jan 2019, 7:32 am

magz wrote:
Piobaire wrote:

Is everyone who has doubts a "denialist"?

At this point? Yes.

Climate Risks as Conclusive as Link between Smoking and Lung Cancer



cemil
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

24 Jan 2019, 7:56 am

I mean for certain demographics mexicans and chinese are worse than hurricanes and tsunamis , so..

Image


Climate change definitely seems like one of those things that may look unrelatable, incomprehensible , and have no imminent impact or whatsoever..



cemil
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

24 Jan 2019, 8:02 am

you certainly have to be rich or silly enough to care for this at all . idk .



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,449
Location: Twin Peaks

24 Jan 2019, 8:05 am

Of course 99% of climate change believers believe in climate change. There's no actual significance in such a statement.

But it's not really a lack of belief in climate change per se, but rather the lack of belief or doubt in certain conclusions reached by climate change science via prognostication.

In this there is a twofold group; the prognosticators and those who have faith in the prognostications. Even though most probably don't fully comprehend the complexities of the climate change prognostication models.

I believe many if not most of the latter half of the group gain their knowledge of climate change science through climate change science websites.

I think a more accurate term for climate change deniers, would be imminent doom doubters.