Quote:
Originally Posted by Plaedo
I don't think it's ridiculous, I think with the internet group think is even more dangerous - it can accelerate it.
Why not both? Let's learn from both!
|
Of course there are lessons, but they need to be illustrated in a relevant way, not just trotted out as "Salem Witch Trials say hi." And you did follow up with more context, so I respect that.
Thing is, "group think" is an actual phenomenon. "Mob mentality" is one as well. But they're trotted out as buzzwords as though this is a clear example of it, with saying it's either obvious why it is, or lumping together and summarizing what has been a completely reasonable range of nuanced opinions, and suggesting they are all one or that they all must also feel the same about something else, based on the false premise that everyone in the "group" feels the same about this, or at very least that those who actually did fit the exact description of what comprises the mob had enough power on their own to override rational decision making. Relying on these buzzwords diminishes our ability to actually look critically at the response and treat individual responses as valid. By labelling this result as solely the effect of irrational thinking, we disregard the number of rational opinions and the amount of rational thinking that actually occurred.
Some people seem to believe that every time a significant change is made in light of negative reactions for the purposes of PR, "the mob" is at fault, or existed at all. But there are also plenty of situations where you don't make the change. These decisions aren't made because of "the mob" or in spite of it, they are made rationally, and when negative reactions are high enough to cause a shift like this, you can pretty much bet that a high percentage of those reactions were rational. But grouping them all together and calling it group think or the mob is no more rational.