Is AGW another example of groupthink

[Hallo Alfie]

Thanks Cornsail, some valid observations and questions - finally.

Criticizing an individual is not stereotyping, therefore your labeling things as 'symptom #4' is false.

I am not saying they are the same. I agree they are two different things.
However, some types of criticism might in some cases fall under the heading of stereotyping.

You are right too, there is always room for valid criticism (of information, not always individuals) and same is obviously not a symptom of groupthink - in fact it is just these types of examples that would would help to dosprove the OP.

Why is your understanding of groupthink flawed? Well for one, I just gave you an example of how you're misapplying the symptoms. You can't understand the theory if you don't understand the symptoms.

"Misapplication" is not the case, we have had a simple misunderstanding of language.
I understand the symptoms well enough and suspect you do too.

Two, posters in this thread do not comprise a "group" in the sense Janis is talking about. JREFers with an interest in AGW are not a "cohesive" group with "leadership".

I agree, that said, the information filters from a leadership group (of sorts) in that there are only a few institutions that ultimately provide the flow of information to the wider community.
As others have pointed out in this thread, (some) religions could be construed as massive examples groupthink and I reckon the same can readily be applied here.

None of these are the case here.

I don't agree for the reasons stated above as well as others.
Remember too, we only need some of the symptoms in evidence for groupthink to be a possibility.

I would also ask that you supply a bit more of what MacCaulay has to say. Has he whittled down Janis from eight to three and the rest have gone? Has he said too that groupthink is exclusively and only in evidence subject to those conditions?

Now, have we any examples that go towards disproving my suspicions?

 

[Meed]

I agree, that said, the information filters from a leadership group (of sorts) in that there are only a few institutions that ultimately provide the flow of information to the wider community.

No idea what you're on about.

As others have pointed out in this thread, (some) religions could be construed as massive examples groupthink and I reckon the same can readily be applied here.

I disagree. Cults and local religious groups can be examples, but not a worldwide religion in the sense that Janis discussed.

I don't agree for the reasons stated above as well as others.
Remember too, we only need some of the symptoms in evidence for groupthink to be a possibility.

We are not discussing symptoms here, we're discussing preconditions and what is meant by a "group".

I would also ask that you supply a bit more of what MacCaulay has to say. Has he whittled down Janis from eight to three and the rest have gone?

No, these are antecedents to groupthink, not causes. Here are Janis' proposed antecedents:

Although Janis sees group cohesion as the most important antecedent to groupthink, he states that it will not invariably lead to groupthink: 'It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition' (Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972). According to Janis, group cohesion will only lead to groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present:

* Structural faults in the organization: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
* Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures, excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.

Now, have we any examples that go towards disproving my suspicions?

No need.

You've provided no valid examples, as I've just shown. If your suspicions were based on these examples, then consider them disproven. There is nothing to disprove and if there was an example would be poor evidence anyway.

 

[Meed]

All we have is lots of shallow irrelevant argument, personal opinions, ad homs and criticism of my argument's construction.

Your arm waving and whining over "name calling" seems to be an effort to ignore or dodge the point being made.

Fail. You're cool with name calling as long as it's against 'warmers', huh?

So yopu concede that it is "impossible" to provide one ounce of evidence to disprove groupthink.
Seems to me you rather prove the OP, doesn't it?

Firstly - I do not believe that we can (at this point in time) "prove" groupthink.

Double fail.

"could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc."

Now, you think my hypothesis "full of fail"?

Prove it!

LOL. You have to prove your hypothesis true, we don't have to prove it fails.

LOL. You have to prove your hypothesis true, we don't have to prove it fails.

Reposting for Alphie

If you believe that to be true, that's fine.
Should I presume also, that you have nothing further to contribute but evasiveness and deflection.

Surely you would be readily in a position to provide just the evidence we require.

Have you never even heard of burden of proof? Is your entire goal to make as many logically unsound posts as possible?

Meh. I don't agree and explained this already

What evidence is there of group think in AGW science, that is YOUR premise, so YOU have to support it.

Frankly, the lack of opposing data or examples as to why I am wrong presented in this thread, leads me further to think the groupthink theory has legs.

Seems no-one wants to consider it, or help prove it wrong.

what's stopping you from answering the challenge

Burden of proof. Again, you can't just walk into a room with an idea and demand any doubters waste their time disproving it. This isn't an alternative fair. If you have an idea, you're the one who has to bring evidence to the table.

Try answering this question which was originally directed to you:

could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc.

I'll put you down as a "no" then shall I?

So you cant produce the few examples I have repeatedly asked of you?

I have asked for some evidence - you refuse to provide it.[...]
It seems to me that the longer this takes, the more legs my theory seems to have.

I am waiting on your response.

Nope the burden is on you, you haven't met it yet.
Sorry this is the JREF, your premise, it is not up to us to show the negative.
[...]
Otherwise I have to believe in angels because the burden would be on me to disprove them.

Rather the burden is on those who say angels exist.

That is the burden of proof.

Why don't you simply show me some examples of why you think groupthink is not in evidence?
It seems to me this should be really quite easy.

I will take that as a "No" then shall I?
You can't provide any useful examples to disprove the assertion of groupthink in AGW.

Is it the inane request to prove a negative?

You can't show your own premise, too bad,

The burden of proof is on you!

This is the JREF AA Alfie, you are here to learn to discuss things critically with a bunch of scepticts, we ALL DOUBT EACH OTHER AND ASK FOR EVIDENCE ALL THE TIME, there are threads in all the forums where this is evident. If you think that some theory is going to be just allowed to walk out without being dismembered , then you have come to the wrong forum.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

Now, how about some evidence that groupthink is not in play.

Please.

Please show me why my suspicions are incorrect.
Please provide some examples as to why groupthink is not in evidence.

To advance this thread, could you ....

Please show me why my suspicions are incorrect.
Please provide some examples as to why groupthink is not in evidence.

What is it with you and trying to prove negatives?

So, you have nothing?

Now..

Please show me why my suspicions are incorrect.
Please provide some examples as to why groupthink is not in evidence.

I concede that it's impossible to prove a negative. It's logic. It's how reality works.

So neither of you will have any difficulty providing examples that show why groupthink isn't applicable.

The burden is on YOU to show where groupthink was met first.

To be honest, I can't prove it, but you should be able to readily disprove it.

So how about it? Can we have a few examples or will you all continue to dodge and sidestep?

Now, how about those examples that disprove my assumption?

So, how about it?
How about some evidence - anything!

But like everyone else here, you fail to provide a solitary example that might help to disprove my suspicions.

So, how about it? Got anything?

Super epic world record breaking triple fail.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No idea what you're on about.

How many "experts" in climatology have we? Is it a large or small number?
How many institutions? etc
I have heard the information flow on AGW described as an pyramid: A very small point at one end being where the information is 'controlled and understood' and the huge bulk of the pyramid being the rest of us.

I disagree. Cults and local religious groups can be examples, but not a worldwide religion in the sense that Janis discussed.

But other 'warmers' do agree that they are comparible - even in this thread.
I think there is a valid comparison in a general way.

We are not discussing symptoms here, we're discussing preconditions and what is meant by a "group".

Then we are slightly at cross purposes aren't we?

No, these are antecedents to groupthink, not causes. Here are Janis' proposed antecedents:

Although Janis sees group cohesion as the most important antecedent to groupthink, he states that it will not invariably lead to groupthink: 'It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition' (Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972). According to Janis, group cohesion will only lead to groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present:

* Structural faults in the organization: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
* Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures, excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.

Geez, you'd have to think the bolded are present in one form or another and at one level or another.
You seem to be supporting my premise here.

No need.

You've provided no valid examples, as I've just shown. If your suspicions were based on these examples, then consider them disproven. There is nothing to disprove and if there was an example would be poor evidence anyway.

Nice try.
With one personal sweeping inaccuate assertion you claim to have disproved the OP. Not even close.

How about some examples rather than more dodges?
And again, it seems to me you have supported the OP here and my thanks.

 

[elbe]

Super epic world record breaking triple fail.

I applaud your summary. I would not have had the patience to wade through that mess again.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Fail. You're cool with name calling as long as it's against 'warmers', huh?

Not at all, I've said time and again I'll give as good as I get. I am not a doormat. Why you have a problem with this is beyond me.

Super epic world record breaking triple fail.

I applaud your summary. I would not have had the patience to wade through that mess again.

A lot of effort to prove nothing really, it does not show where why or how a groupthink theory is invalid.
You have merely managed to cherry pick, parse and misapply comments and context.

But, guess what?

You still provide no examples as to why the OP is incorrect.

 

[Meed]

How many "experts" in climatology have we? Is it a large or small number?

Large. And they're certainly not in a "leadership" position over "AGW supporters".

How many institutions?

Very many. But again, irrelevant.

But other 'warmers' do agree that they are comparible

And? Surely you don't think this is a valid argument.

Geez, you'd have to think the bolded are present in one form or another and at one level or another.

Nope. Not with the JREF posters you've accused repeatedly of groupthink and hasn't been demonstrated to be the case for anyone else either.

How about some examples rather than more dodges?

Like I already said: your premise doesn't hold and your examples are already disproven as far as fitting into Janis' theory of groupthink. There is nothing to disprove and no reason to give you "examples' to do so. Sorry.

 

[Meed]

Why you have a problem with this is beyond me.

You missed the point. You've complained about insults made against deniers/skeptics many times. Here you accuse parky, a respectful "warmer" poster who gets insulted by some anti-AGW poster, of

whining over "name calling"

 

[varwoche]

There is just a few, but the list goes on and on.

Sorry but a list of bullets, most of which are so vague that it's laughable, does not constitute examples. Your posts are relentlessly vague, devoid of factual content, and are loaded with unsupported, highly subjective opinions. Unimpressive in the extreme AAA. You need to do some serious pencil sharpening.

I'd save the sharpened pencil for later though. This train wreck never had a chance.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I might concede many points some of you make, such as:
- my knowledge of groupthink theory is not 100% (I am not a psychologist)
- my premises are loose and poorly formed.
- my arguments are vague.
- there is groupthink on both sides.
- the examples I have provided are not proof
- the examples are somewhat vague
- and so on we might go.

But to me they are not all that relevant. Why? Because I am not purporting to be an expert in this area. I am not saying I am 100% correct (far from it). I am not saying that I am not susceptible to groupthink - like everyone else that is human, I am.

The fact is, I have asked for a discussion on this and some reasons to thinkotherwise.
I have my suspicions that groupthink is in evidence.

All this talk, and yet we still have nothing to show why groupythink is not a possibility.

So, why don't you guys just shut me up by giving some of the examples I have asked for? It should really be a very simple matter.
Yet nearly six pages in and not one; nothing but dodging, weaving, attacks and more groupthink that support the OP rather than negate it.

What makes me even more suspicious, is that not one of you will consider the possibility og groupthink when there have been examples through history of highly intelligent people who have fallen victim to the same thing.
Not one of you have provided some evidence or examples to disprove my suspicions. Why?

Come on, give me something. Show me why I am wrong.

 

[Meed]

All this talk, and yet we still have nothing to show why groupythink is not a possibility.
[...]
Not one of you have provided some evidence or examples to disprove my suspicions. Why?

Why is it that you're unable to read?

You have to prove your hypothesis true, we don't have to prove it fails.

Have you never even heard of burden of proof?

What evidence is there of group think in AGW science, that is YOUR premise, so YOU have to support it.

Burden of proof. Again, you can't just walk into a room with an idea and demand any doubters waste their time disproving it. This isn't an alternative fair. If you have an idea, you're the one who has to bring evidence to the table.

...

So, why don't you guys just shut me up by giving some of the examples I have asked for?

Why is it that you're unable to read?

What is it with you and trying to prove negatives?

it's impossible to prove a negative. It's logic. It's how reality works.

The burden is on YOU to show where groupthink was met first.

the burden is on you, you haven't met it yet.

...

Not one of you have provided some evidence or examples to disprove my suspicions. Why?

Why is it that you're unable to read?

Sorry this is the JREF, your premise, it is not up to us to show the negative.
[...]
Otherwise I have to believe in angels because the burden would be on me to disprove them.

Rather the burden is on those who say angels exist.

That is the burden of proof.

prove a negative?

The burden of proof is on you!

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

...

What makes me even more suspicious, is that not one of you will consider the possibility og groupthink when there have been examples through history of highly intelligent people who have fallen victim to the same thing.

Why is it that you're unable to read?

Of course there are example of groupthink involving AGW. That doesn't make AGW itself or the basic science supporting it groupthink.

I should think there would be examples of groupthink in any group of people

Those two posts exactly state my viewpoint.

That's a silly question, then. As you have stated them and have already correctly observed, groupthink is endemic to all populations on all topics.

Yes, some groups do like to just call anyone who questions any aspect of AGW deniers and shout them down. You'll find that these are not the scientists doing the real work out there. The presence of this groupthink and derision does not support AGW and it does not count against it either. If it were the sole source of support, it would mean AGW is probably false. Unfortunately for the world, that is not the case.

...

Come on, give me something. Show me why I am wrong.

Why is it that you're unable to read?

posters in this thread do not comprise a "group" in the sense Janis is talking about.

I just gave you an example of how you're misapplying the symptoms

* Directive leadership.
* Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
* Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

None of these are the case here.

Here are Janis' antecedents:

group cohesion will only lead to groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present:

* Structural faults in the organization: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
* Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures, excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.

[None of these are the case here]

...

 

[Dancing David]

Prove that god doesn't exist.

Discuss.

 

[varwoche]

AAA, you've posted to this thread 57 times (give or take; my count was interrupted). Here's a little quiz for you:

In the 56 opportunities you had to bolster the OP -- opportunuties to provide some evidence -- how many times did you cite/quote a source?

Zero (no, quoting the OP repeatedly doesn't count)

Truly a relentless stream of vague arm waving, burden shifting, and personal opinion.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

"Truly a relentless stream of vague arm waving, burden shifting, and personal opinion."

Perhaps, and why not - that's what I've been given by others. I put forward the OP and it has yet to be addressed.

I continue to state that I have "suspicions" and that proving it will be difficult.
You accuse me of being unable to read - straight back at you - you all conveniently continue to dodge and weave, argue and arm wave yourself.

I was asked for examples before you provided any, I have given some - your turn.

Honestly, how hard could it be to find some examples to shut me up?

Can I assume by your deliberate reluctance it is not possible for you to do so?

ANTE UP LADS

Let's have some examples and you can put this thread to bed.