Group dynamics The benefits of the Devil’s Advocacy depends heavily on the groups attitudes toward the technique. In the ideal situation, the group welcomes the technique, leading to advantages for the group’s dynamics. In that case, the technique creates the opportunity for individuals to express unpopular opinions while protecting those who present them (George & Stern, 2002). Israeli military intelligence institutionalized the Devil’s Advocate with reportedly good results for the open-mindedness of analysts (Kuperwasser, 2007). Correspondingly, many studies strongly suggest that the performance enhances when the culture protects minority views; for instance increasing creative thinking (George & Stern, 2002; Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003). …show more content…
Jervis (1976, p.416) accurately put it: “there are limits to the utility of a devil’s advocate who is not a true devil”. In this case, analysts don’t expect the Devil’s Advocate to express genuine concerns and not consider his arguments as a serious expression of doubts (Heuer & Pherson, 2010). The Devil’s Advocate role doesn’t require true belief in the argument he defends, hence, the artificial introduction of dissident view is problematic (Handel, 1984; George, 2004). Whenever the analysts perceive the exercise as something they have to put up with, the Devil’s Advocate loses impact and is merely viewed as wrong simply because of the role. Respectively, it is the institutionalization of the cry-wolf problem (Betts, 1978; Brady, 1993). In the worst case scenario, the Devil’s Advocate receives hostile attitudes from the group and face considerable resistance for countering the group's judgement and simply causing unnecessary trouble (George, 2004). Resultingly, the Devil’s Advocacy is ineffective if analysts do not put credence in the technique and single him out. A possible serious disadvantage would be when the Devil’s Advocate expresses true doubts and the group doesn’t actually listen to his arguments (Handel,
In several cases, folks will set aside their personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. Group-think influences police officer’s rationalizations for some behaviors by preventing members of the group from reconsidering their beliefs while causing them to ignore warning signs. Group-think tends to occur more in situations where group members are very similar to one another and is more likely to take place when a powerful and charismatic leader commands the group. Situations in which the group is placed under extreme stress or where moral dilemmas exist also increase the occurrence of groupthink (Haberfeld et al.2014,
I feel that the thesis of the article “An Intellectual Free Lunch” by Michael Kinsley is that people often share strong, uneducated opinions on topics that they do not have adequate information on, and this tends to cause issues.
In the short essay “In Defense of Dangerous Ideas”, the author, Steven Pinker, argues that we must be free to express “dangerous ideas.” These ideas can be anything remotely controversial; making a variety of people uncomfortable or offended. According to Pinker, there is a certain way that society should function. He often refers to the ones in charge, the ones asking the questions, as “intellectually responsible.” As for the rest of society, they are simply the ones offended by these questions. In essence, Steven Pinker uses academic disciplines to argue that important ideas need to be aired and discussed, no matter the discomfort. Although I cannot agree with him completely, I do not believe that it is morally
Tannen states, “In the argument culture, criticism, attack, or opposition are the predominant if not the only ways of responding to people or ideas. I use the phrase “culture of critique,” to capture this aspect. “Critique in the sense is not a general term for analysis or interpretation but rather a synonym for criticism.” Tannen states that she is calling attention to and calling into question the inherent dangers of the argument culture, however her article does not discuss an approachable strategy that would solve this social
Firstly , Tannen introduces the term “culture of critique” by beginning three successive paragraphs with the term so that the reader will not forget it. Tannen then identifies the problem presented by the “culture of critique”, that is, a tendency to attack the person making an argument, or misrepresenting the issue, rather than arguing against their position itself. She points out that instead of listening to reason, people who are caught up in the culture of critique debate as i...
Numerous cases in history show that identification with a particular group can lead to dreadful outcomes. Together, with historical evidence, classic psychological studies tell a very powerful story. Decent people can take on oppressive roles and succumb to oppressive leaders. However, people often resist tyranny, and their resistance tends to be most effective when it is collective.
In small, closed up communities like Hillsboro, free thinking is met with opposition and criticism as a sign of fear for the unknown. Leaders of a new movement or way of life will continue to be faced with this opposition throughout life. The good leaders will meet the opposition with patience, sincerity and respect; while other leaders will attempt to force their beliefs on others, making people apprehensive to join or share the same beliefs. These forceful leaders although usually few and far between, make a shoddy name for those looking to just preach their beliefs and thoughts to willing followers.
Critics believe that American citizens take advantage of civil liberties supporting limits on freedom of speech. They believe that degradation of humanity is inherent in unregulated speech. For example, according to Delgado and Stefancic, a larger or more authoritative person can use hate speech to physically threaten and intimidate those who are less significant (qtd. in Martin 49). Freedom of speech can also be used to demoralize ethnic and religious minorities. Author Liam Martin, points out that if one wants to state that a minority is inferior, one must prove it scientifically (45-46). Discouraging minorities can lead to retaliation, possibly resulting in crimes or threatening situations. "Then, the response is internalized, as it must be, for talking back will be futile or even dangerous. In fact, many hate crimes have taken place when the victim did just that-spoke back to the aggressor and paid with his or her life" (qtd. in Martin 49). Therefore, critics believe that Americans do not take into account the harm they may cause people and support limits on freedom of speech.
Katz, Elihu, and Jacob J. Feldman. (1962). The debates in the light of research: A survey of surveys. In The Great Debates, ed. Sidney Kraus. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 173-223.
Stosny states that “criticism fails because it embodies two of the things that human beings hate the most: it calls for submission, and we hate to submit and it devalues, and we hate to feel devalued” (Stosny). Furthermore, he argues that criticism is used as a form of “ego defense” when we feel devaluated by behavior or attitude as opposed to disagreeing with their behavior or attitude (Stosny). Tony Schwartz, author of the article “There’s No Such Thing as Constructive Criticism” for HarvardBusinessReview.com, says that criticism “challenges our sense of value” and “implies judgement and we all recoil feeling judged” (Schwartz). Schwartz reiterates the point that constructive criticism is a useful tool that isn’t working or doesn’t exist simply because people don’t know how to properly give or receive constructive criticism. To prove this, he lists three reasons why we assume constructive criticism doesn’t work while in reality it actually does. “The first mistake we often make is giving feedback when we are feeling that our own value is at risk. That’s a recipe for disaster, and it happens far more commonly than we think, or are aware” (Schwartz). To summarize this reason he listed, Schwartz states that when we feel like we’re being
As Frye (1986) quotes, “the vast majority of things we hear today are prejudices and clichés, simply verbal formulas that have no thought behind them but are put up as a pretence of thinking”. This is still incredibly true today. Prejudice is defined as “a negative feeling toward a group based on faulty generalization…something we think and feel” (Bergen, 154-155). With no concept of how to critically evaluate one’s prejudices, there will be no change in problematic thinking. Thus, in order to address society’s and one’s own prejudices, critical thinking must be incorporated, which can be fostered by a diverse
The dynamics of mob mentality, social conformity and ethical decision making are profoundly influenced by the presence and strength of a collective conscience, which serves both as a guiding force and potential catalyst for both constructive and destructive behaviors in society. While the collective conscience offers valuable insights and contributions to society, it also engenders a phenomenon known as groupthink or mob mentality, wherein individual critical thinking is suppressed in favor of group consensus. The concept of groupthink as described by social psychologist Irving Janis is, “mode of thinking in which individual members of small cohesive groups tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal”(Schmidt). As people adhere to shared standards set by society, they tend to have blind faith in the shared ideologies without questioning its logic, leading them to overlook their own perspectives and a lack of critical thinking. They also develop an illusion of vulnerability which is supported by a boosted sense of high
It is one of the most difficult challenges anyone can face, and one that for some cultures could result in very harsh consequences. Stating an opinion that does not relate to the majority’s opinion can be a very frightening experience, yet at the same time be a very refreshing, calming experience. The Spiral of Silence theory, created by Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, explains why people fear to express their opinions when their opinion does not match that of the majority’s. Her research and discoveries will be discussed as well as those that did not feel that her theory was adequate to explain such phenomena as the Spiral of Silence Theory consists of.
In his essay Critical Thinking: What Is It Good For? (In Fact, What Is It), Howard Gabennesch explains the importance of critical thinking by drawing attention to how its absence is responsible for societies many ills including, but not limited to, the calamity in Vietnam. Yet, at the end of his essay, Gabennesch also mentions that, despite “the societal benefits of critical thinking, at the individual level, uncritical thinking offers social and psychological rewards of its own.”(14). Similarly, it is these rewards that, like the bait on a fishhook, often make individuals hesitant to engage in critical thinking despite the resulting harm to both them and society.
Volkswagen is a company that’s part of the world’s largest automaker group called the “Volkswagen Group”. Recently, it was discovered that for the past several years the company had been cheating on its emission inspections on their diesel power car. The company installed a computer software in the car that reported emissions much less than what the car actually produced. It was found that these cars emitted 40 times more nitrogen oxide pollutants in the environment than what the United States regulations allow. These levels of pollutants have the potential to cause many respiratory problems and other health concerns. This case resulted in Volkswagen agreeing to pay $15.3 billion dollars to its customers and regulations. The company’s engineer