I really think you are exactly correct. Group think is one of the most common problems, left or right, of the new information age. People all too often rely totally on confirmation biased sources. It is why I urge anyone to expand their information space.I have become extremely suspicious of those who rely heavily on “groupthink” for opinion support. Heavy reliance on such as ISW and Wilson indicates old habits/techniques likely first learned in junior high speech class to awe an audience. Extensive use of easily manipulated third party video also comes to mind along with using any other “packaged” info for effect and convenience. The concept of the “mutual admiration society” may also fit. Soon enough such dependence will carry an almost certain stigma and risk of AI manipulation... if not already. Those heavily involved in groupthink are the most vulnerable by definition.
Caveat emptor
What I find particularly depressing about your post, is the novel concept that supporting a belief with evidence is an example of "group think." Most educated people would call that a appropriate employment of the term "argument" - not in the current definition of a spat or fuss - but in the classical use of the term to employ reasoning supported by evidence. I try to do that with most points that I make, and attempt to be very clear when I am simply offering my opinion.
Regrettably, the response of far too many, even most people, is not to provide counter argument but to attack either the person or the source of the evidence. The highly respected Wilson center and ISW analysis of the conflict in Ukraine and conditions in Russia obviously doesn't fit the confirmation bias of many on the far right. I suspect that analysis and my opinions are in stark contrast to those with whom they normally dialogue. The response, almost inevitably, is to attack that analysis not with counter argument or evidence, but by calling them names - how did you put it - adolescents breathing rarified air or something like that? And I assume your counter to the reasoning I employ is that I am part of a "mutual admiration society?" If I have that wrong, I apologize. I was having real difficulty understanding your "concept."
I would simply urge all of us to examine the possibility that anyone, on any side of the political spectrum, can be subject to "group think." I personally believe (an opinion) that the best way to guard against it is to employ as broad a range of information sources as possible.
For instance, every morning I have the major stories of the day delivered to my inbox by Forbes, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal along with half a dozen political military updates from this country and the UK. My Bookmarks bar contains Fox, CNN, Newsmax, Politico, Gateway Pundit, Citizen Free Press, Breitbart, RedState, and God forbid also MSNBC among others. The only way to understand any issue is to see it from all angles. Not to do so is to be played by someone else's narrative.
Caveat Emptor indeed.
Last edited:
