John R. Houk
© August 27, 2018
Have you ever heard the term Groupthink? Let’s look
at some definitions:
a pattern of thought characterized
by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values
and ethics
Groupthink is a
psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of
people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group
results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.
Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision
without critical evaluation of alternative
viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating
themselves from outside influences.
Groupthink requires individuals to
avoid raising controversial issues or alternative
solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and
independent thinking. The dysfunctional group
dynamics of the "ingroup"
produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that
the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly
overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the
abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore,
groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".
Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group
structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the
likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making
process.
Groupthink is a construct of social
psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields
of communication studies, political
science, management, and organizational theory,[1] as
well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]
Groupthink is sometimes stated to
occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to
explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views
(such as "conservatism"
and "liberalism" in the U.S. political
context [4])
or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude.[5] However,
this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate
group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation
bias of the individual members of the group.
Most of the initial research on
groupthink was conducted by Irving
Janis, a research psychologist from Yale
University.[6] …
READ THE REST
What Is Groupthink?
Groupthink occurs when a group with
a particular agenda makes irrational or problematic decisions because its
members value harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical
evaluation. Individual members of the group are strongly discouraged from any
disagreement with the consensus and set aside their own thoughts and feelings
to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and other
group members. In a groupthink situation, group members refrain from expressing
doubts, judgments or disagreement with the consensus and ignore
any ethical or moral consequences of
any group decision that furthers their cause. Risk-taking is
common, and the lack of creativity and
independent thinking have negative personal and political implications for
both group members and outsiders. Groupthink decisions rarely have successful
outcomes.
In fairness, no individual or cohesive group is immune to
the negative effects of groupthink. The situation today is America is nearly
divided 50/50 between Conservatives and Liberals. The irony is politically
Conservatives won the 2016 election cycle, BUT the traditional means of mass
communication are dominated by Liberals (aka Leftists, Progressives,
Socialists and various degrees of Communists). AND the Liberals are
brainwashing their readers, listeners and viewers with Groupthink principles
glorifying Liberal principles and values over traditional Conservative moral
principles and values.
Elizabeth Vaughn tackles the Leftist Groupthink in this
essay entitled, “The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the
Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil”.
JRH 8/27/18
********************
The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the
Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil
The fact that the left has been able to thrust this
farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook
example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the
meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and
other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.
AUGUST 26, 2018
Groupthink is
a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people gets together and starts to
think collectively with one mind. The group is more concerned with maintaining
unity than with objectively evaluating their situation, alternatives and
options. The group, as a whole, tends to take irrational actions or
overestimate their positions or moral rightness.
There have been periods of history when large groups of
people, so invested in a particular goal and so convinced of their own
righteousness, have collectively lost sight of reality, often with tragic
results.
The larger the group, the less responsibility individual
members will shoulder for their own actions. Responsibility for individual
wrongdoing is diffused or “shared” by the members of the group. Because
“everyone” takes responsibility, no one ultimately takes responsibility.
America’s left, Democratic politicians, the mainstream media
and those who receive their news from the mainstream media, have become
radicalized over their hatred for Donald Trump. Their unwillingness to accept
the result of a fair election directly clashes with the principles upon which
America was founded.
In the wake of last week’s uproar over former Trump attorney
Michael Cohen’s plea deal, I would like to remind them of some of their own
vulnerabilities.
1. Have you forgotten about the
Obama campaign’s offer of $150,000 to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to shut him up
during the 2008 campaign? Rev. Wright, whom Obama met in the late 1980s,
preached a very incendiary form of Black Liberation Theology. How can we forget
the clip of Rev. Wright’s sermon given the Sunday following 9/11 when he said
the attacks were payback for all of America’s misdeeds?
Ed Klein, in his May 2012 book about Obama’s White House
years, entitled “The Amateur,” details his interview with Rev. Wright. Wright
revealed that he had received a bribe from a friend of Obama’s
during the 2008 campaign.
Klein spoke to Sean Hannity when the book was published.
What
happened is that after ABC’s Brian Ross broadcast the
audiotapes --videotapes of the Rev. Wright God damning America and slamming
whites and slamming Jews and America, he was contacted by one of Obama’s
closest personal friends, a guy who travels on Obama’s plane, who plays
basketball with him, who goes on vacations with him.
I didn't name him in the book, but I can tell you who he is.
His name is Dr. Eric Whitaker. Dr. Whitaker is the vice president of the
University of Chicago Medical Center and he’s a member of Obama’s very tight
inner-circle. And he sent an email to a member of the Trinity United Church of
Christ [Wright’s church].
Whitaker sent an email to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, offering him
$150,000 to stay quiet and not do any public speeches until after the election
in November 2008.
Chicago politics is one hand feeds the other, as you know.
And Eric Whitaker, a very close friend of the Obamas, sent an email to a member
of the church saying that the Rev. Wright could get $150,000 if he would shut
up and not criticize Obama anymore.
Then, after Rev. Wright said, 'no thank you,' Obama himself
paid a personal call on the Rev. Wright. The face-to-face meeting took place in
March 2008, 10 days after Obama's famous "race speech" took place.
Now, we know that this is true, not only because the Rev.
Wright told me so, but also because the Secret Service logs, logged in this
meeting. So we have confirmation that it actually took place.
There are no reports of a paper trail for this 2008 payment,
but Rev. Wright did indeed shut up. Prior to this bribe, Obama’s association
with the anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor nearly sank his campaign. Surely,
this provided a benefit to Obama’s campaign.
2. It is well known that, when
members of Congress are accused of sexual harassment by interns, staffers or
anyone else, they can count on a taxpayer-funded “slush fund” to pay for
non-disclosure agreements, “hush money,” from their victims.
Certainly, these payments provide a benefit to the campaigns
of the accused. They also have probably saved several marriages.
The online fact-checking website, “Snopes,” considered
this question: Did
Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually
Harassed? They concluded this was false.
Their reasoning may surprise you. The statement is false
because the fund is completely legal. It is “not
secret” or “utilized for illicit purposes.” So, as long
as they are transparent about it, it’s fine.
Although there is a U.S.
Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush
fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is
administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995
with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards
and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate
Rules committees.
Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the
fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in
Treasury reports.
The total amount paid out annually ($17M has been paid
out over the last 20 years) is made public, but the specifics of individual
transactions remain confidential.
Why aren’t taxpayers allowed access to the details? Why
are members of Congress allowed privacy while the President is not?
3. Why wasn’t the money paid for
the dossier by the Hillary Clinton campaign or the DNC that she controlled
listed as a campaign contribution? To say that it provided a benefit to the
campaign would be a gross understatement. Instead, they ran it through a law
firm and billed
it as a legal expense.
This bogus dossier has become the most consequential
political document in recent memory. It has passed through many hands, not the
least of which were Bruce Ohr’s. Inquiring minds want to know what role he
played in this soap opera. Is it possible that he may have composed portions of
it as it is rumored? Why doesn’t the Mueller team schedule a pre-dawn raid on
his home and office so we can find out?
4. Michael Cohen was Trump’s
attorney. When we retain the services of an attorney, an accountant, or any
other professional, we state our goal and leave it to the attorney to execute
the plan.
They are the trained professionals and we are the clients.
Most of us don’t question their methods. We assume our lawyers know what
they’re doing.
If a lawyer makes a mistake, intentionally or otherwise, it
is his or her own responsibility. “Well, my client directed me to do it” is not
a valid excuse for wrongdoing.
And also, because of such a thing as attorney/client
privilege, we should feel we can speak frankly to our lawyers. Do we now have
to worry that our conversations with lawyers might be recorded?
Why wasn’t the office and residence of Hillary Clinton’s
attorney or her IT professional raided? Why don’t we try to prosecute some of
Hillary’s closest aides? What about the IT employee who tried to bleach bit
subpoenaed documents and destroy the hard drive? She was the subject of an FBI
investigation. It would have been fair game.
Summing Up:
The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce
upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of
the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more
obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental
officials remain unscrutinized.
The only thing that will end it – declassifying the
necessary DOJ/FBI documents, unredacted please – is the one thing that Trump
has been, so far, reluctant to do. Perhaps he is simply waiting for the right
time. Maybe he’s planning an October surprise to achieve maximum impact. I
certainly hope so.
Elizabeth Vaughn
is a conservative political blogger and mom of three residing in southern
Connecticut. Following a career in the financial services industry, she is now
a regular contributor to Freedom Outpost. Contact her at eliza.vaughn13@gmail.com
______________________
Leading Up To Leftist
Groupthink
John R. Houk
© August 27, 2018
_________________________
The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert
Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil
No comments:
Post a Comment