Boo lights: groupthink edition

I suspect that we're not criticizing the CraigsList project as harshly as we should. I suggested as much, but there was little follow-up.

I made one or two skeptical comments on that page, but I didn't criticize the project as much as it deserved. It seemed so obviously nugatory. I didn't want to spend the time and effort thinking about something that I wasn't at all interested in, especially when everyone else seemed so excited about it. I just figured the people who really care about it can do it if they want.

There is a type of selection bias at work here, where people who aren't at all interested in something may not feel the desire to spend time fighting the tide, which then makes the tide appear stronger. There are probably also people who feel this way about cryonics. (Not me: I think it's awesome.)

I have not always been aware of the technical meaning of groupthink. But even then I was careful to distinguish between group cohesion one one hand, and irrational commitment to failing courses of action (or poisoned beliefs) on the other.

There seems too much discussion on this site regarding definitions. I call them "word arguments" and tend to skip them when I sense their presence. It seems people like to categorize things, in which case a word argument is an attempt to write dictionaries so everything make sense. I much prefer to try and understand what the other person is attempting to say, perhaps even without some specific, technical word to describe it, and continue the discussion in profitable directions.

In which case, the proper response to accusations of groupthink would be, "I disagree for reasons X and Y. Now to cover your othre points..." Or, in my estimation, even better, "Why does it seem like groupthink to you?" You don't even have to ask them for their definition of the word to understand what they want to tell you, so long as they spell it out. And you don't necessarily have to answer the accusation of groupthink, then, either, especially if their reasons are not contained in the definition of the word. Instead, you answer the points themselves: what the person was trying to convey in the first place.

It's not I think that we don't suffer from confirmation bias - of course we do, and I doubt that we do properly compensate for it - it's that saying "groupthink" or "confirmation bias" without providing evidence doesn't advance the debate any, and seems to constitute no more than a way of sneering at people for not agreeing with you.

There seems too much discussion on this site regarding definitions. I call them "word arguments" and tend to skip them when I sense their presence. It seems people like to categorize things, in which case a word argument is an attempt to write dictionaries so everything make sense. I much prefer to try and understand what the other person is attempting to say, perhaps even without some specific, technical word to describe it, and continue the discussion in profitable directions.

In which case, the proper response to accusations of groupthink would be, "I disagree for reasons X and Y. Now to cover your other points..." Or, in my estimation, even better, "Why does it seem like groupthink to you?" You don't even have to ask them for their definition of the word to understand what they want to tell you, so long as they spell it out. And you don't necessarily have to answer the accusation of groupthink, then, either, especially if their stated reasons are not contained in the definition of the word. Instead, you answer the points themselves: what the person was trying to convey in the first place. And you might be able to suggest they use a better word or phrase, once you understand them.

Perhaps they are not trying to convince you that there is more bias than you think (which would require evidence), but just reminding you that it does exist and is probably not being adequately compensated for? If we agree that a problem exists, then we should welcome such reminders (at least until we find some other way to solve the problem).

I don't think that my 'platonian' beliefs are on-topic here on Less Wrong, but since they seem to form the foundation/substrate of my beliefs they leak through sometimes. (For whoever is down-voting me, I agree it was unwise of me to link to those old comments...)

Down-voting is an even less-informative kind of booing. At least a groupthink accusation explains what it thinks the problem is.

Yes, maybe it would be nice to have a detailed analysis, but is it really desirable to encourage deliberate punishment of posters who are trying to point our biases for not going into more detail? It seems as though the probable effect of such a policy would be fewer groupthink accusations - and more unidentified groupthink.

I'm not blaming you for this because there isn't another option but linking new users to the entirety of the sequences is, like, the most ridiculous habit we have here. Imagine you've never been here. You sign up because you read something clever someone wrote about groupthink. Then someone suggests you check out a list of some 600+ blog posts covering a tremendous variety of seemingly unrelated topics which the user may already know more about than Eliezer or lack even the basic background knowledge necessary for comprehension. I also doubt that the sequences are even the 600 whatever best/most important/most helpful introduction to what is going on here. Sure, some new users will be enthralled by the Sequences or parts of them but I have trouble imagining a worse gateway than that giant list with subsection upon subsection.

I thought panda's comment deserved positive karma. Nothing wrong with expressing sincere appreciation for an article. Also, since panda's comment gave nothing to indicate that we should actively discourage them from participating here, we shouldn't vote the comment into the negative because panda would probably interpret it as a sign for "go away".

Thanks for that. :) Definitely wasn't expecting it. I may have wandered in with the wrong idea. I found this site linked from someone's blog, so I thought it was a plain old blog too, not a discussion community.

Sorry - my comment didn't add much to the discussion at all! But thanks for being helpful, everyone. After checking out your links, AngryParsley, this place is a bit too clever for me! Fascinating stuff, but I probably can't contribute. But I've recommended it to my more clever friends irl, who'll probably join in your sequences at some point.

Sorry again, guys! As you were. :)

I didn't accuse anyone of groupthink or demand any particular proof opposing or supporting claims of groupthink. I said it warranted a rebuttal before being dismissed as an attempt.

It seems dirty to say, "It raises a bunch of good points," and then, without answering any of them, say, "See? I just said it has good points. No groupthink here, thus disproving his points."

In some sense, absence of rebuttals can be viewed as silent agreement, thus implying the presence of groupthink (both because it is an agreement with the accusation thereof, and more so because the agreement is silent). On the other hand, if there was a real groupthink, people would be trying hard to rebut all accusations, so the lack of the rebuttals may be interpreted as evidence against groupthink.

Which leads me to think that playing devil's advocate may not be the best way to detect groupthink. Perhaps the groupthink hypothesis is not testable, in the same way conspiracy theories aren't. Is it correct? If not, are there some reliable tests, some questions whose anwers (or lack of answers) would tell us whether there is groupthink present inside the group or not?

making an unreasonable request for censorship

This was done in the past and I think it was a great request.

demanding work (software) that you don't have the right to ask for.

It was a suggestion that I think people here would enjoy doing. I always have fun when I'm coding something experimental (of course these things are always fun until they're not).

Downvoted for wasting my time with many paragraphs of empty status signals

Interesting charge. Don't worry though, I caught your hostile signals.

Fair point. It would have been more precise to say raise the difficulty in charging etc.

I liked the suggestions. I wouldn't permanently ban any topics but if every couple of months we stopped talking about transhumanist topics I think the results would be really constructive and help grow the community.

I really wish there was some way to teach arrogance.

Just keep modeling. ;)

Why was this not downvoted to -10? Y'all are way too cultish if you are not voting this stuff down.

I really wish there was some way to teach irony. It seems to be such a large factor in whether people actually make progress as rationalists or not.

I really wish there was some way to teach arrogance. It seems to be such a large factor in whether people actually make progress as rationalists or not.

I don't usually find cause to say this in reply to downvoted comments, but that is worth a post. Particularly because the conception you have of arrogance (or at least, the conceptions that I infer you have about arrogance) crosses some significant inferential barriers so is lost somewhat in this context.

One symptom from the linked definition of groupthink:

Exercising direct pressure on others

Seriously though man, you're the one that has the overwhelming karma lead around here. Seems a little petty to police 4 dissenting votes.

A position can be well-supported by facts and still be well-supported by a group for reasons other than facts.

EDIT: The statement above is a truism. I also don't think a group's support for or opposition against evolution is a sufficient indicator of all other group opinions being correct.