I once heard that Homo Sapien should be renamed to Homo Socialus because, as pointed out here, we aren't as individually intelligent as we are part of a group. Worse, the 'lone wolf' of individualism ends up often being a pathology in itself.
Love this line of thought... it reminds me of what Rebecca Goldstein wrote in her fantastic book, "Plato at the Googleplex":
"Progress in philosophy consists, at least in part, in constantly bringing to light the covert presumptions that burrow their way deep down into our thinking, too deep down for us to even be aware of them... Plato conceived of philosophy as necessarily gregarious rather than solitary. The exposure of presumptions is best done in company, the more argumentative the better."
The first part of this post talking about our many cognitive biases and how they preclude us from being able to accept logical arguments rings true to me in my personal experience. But this idea that being in a group somehow dissolves these problems requires some more scrutiny. "Group-think" is generally not a term used to described enlightened thinking and for good reason. What happens when a majority of the group is biased, as it clear so many individuals are?
Looking at your examples of good group thinking, it seems most of the studies are testing pure logical thinking in which the possibility of members having a bias towards one answer or another is highly unlikely. But we know most problems humans consider don't fall into these neat categories.
Another of your examples talks about doctors discussing a diagnosis, but this is another rather specialized form of group decision making. All of the members have extensive education in the topic being discussed and all of them are trained in the process of diagnosis. Is this really applicable to group thinking in other contexts?
You also point out a study which shows "humans are pretty good at spotting the biases of others", but looking at the abstract of the study, this phenomenon may only serve to reinforce our own biases. From the cited study abstract, "Although this blind spot regarding one's own biases may serve familiar self-enhancement motives, it is also a product of the phenomenological stance of naive realism."
The most ideal circumstance of group thinking I can imagine is a jury in a trial. Clearly in this case a group is preferable, but a veritable mountain of legal procedures are in place to prevent bias from entering into the group, and usually decisions are only made through overwhelming majorities.
So I guess the conclusion we can draw is that group thinking may be preferable to individual thinking, but only with the important caveat that none of the members of the group are significantly biased in their thinking on the topic at hand.
All good points. There are many biases and I'm not suggesting group work is a universal cure-all. Bias will always be running in the background. Humans will need to develop a suite of tools, of which group problem solving will likely be one. I suspect we need a culture that stresses bias detection. It should be seen as the lurking Boogeyman we need to be on guard against and others might help us see where we're going astray.
Well I admire your commitment to making people think more rationally, though of late I have started to think that the exercise may be in vain. I see the billions spent on manipulating people's thoughts, whether it be election campaigns, advertising campaigns, or just straight state propaganda, and I see just how depressingly effective it all is. For every psychiatrist spending their free time encouraging people towards better critical thinking skills, there is at least one other person out there making wheelbarrows full of cash utilizing their knowledge of the human mind to identify it's weakness and develop methods by which those weaknesses can be most easily exploited.
I have read (admittedly secondhand) that in Plato's Republic, Socrates likens the state to a ship, and that the uneducated voting on policy is as illogical as a ship taken over by a crew with no knowledge of sailing. I would go even further to say that most times even the well-educated are easily fooled/clueless, and that the idea that people can run a state by voting is hopelessly idealistic. The people who are really in charge are the people who control the messaging, the people who can purchase advertising, and the people who know how to manipulate others.
One might say well, if we only educated people better in the methods of critical appraisal and independent thinking, we might create people better immune to manipulation. Maybe, but what leader or group of oligarchs running a country wants their citizens to be more independent minded? It would be like trying to herd cats to get your citizens behind any major wars you want. A bunch of Socrates fans running around questioning everything, pure chaos! Try getting them to march in formation and shoot the people you point at, Ha! good luck.
So while I still debate and argue and pursue methods for better learning and reaching others in my personal life, I am of the mind that on a population-wide scale it's best to just admit people are easily manipulated, and try and figure out how to put someone in charge of the information flows that at least has good intentions towards the citizenry. Free speech and free inquiry are out of style these days and I am sad to admit I have also lost hope in their promise.
Studies have found that small groups (usually 3-8 people) working through problems that haven't already been "solved" work well. If you bring together six people who already believe that 3+3=6 and task them with finding out was 3+3 equals, you're unlikely to get any substantive discussion, let alone a surprising answer. They'll all just affirm what they believe to be obvious. You either need to ask them about something unknown, or involve people with opposing views. Echo chambers are presumably large groups who aren't really discussing so much as affirming what they or their authority figure believes. But combating confirmation bias is complicated and I'd like to spend more time going over the data in the future.
Also give me an open-minded and attentive audience and i'll prove your assertion that "conspiracy beliefs are correctable" to be entirely unfounded. ( :
I once heard that Homo Sapien should be renamed to Homo Socialus because, as pointed out here, we aren't as individually intelligent as we are part of a group. Worse, the 'lone wolf' of individualism ends up often being a pathology in itself.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/homo-socialis
Love this line of thought... it reminds me of what Rebecca Goldstein wrote in her fantastic book, "Plato at the Googleplex":
"Progress in philosophy consists, at least in part, in constantly bringing to light the covert presumptions that burrow their way deep down into our thinking, too deep down for us to even be aware of them... Plato conceived of philosophy as necessarily gregarious rather than solitary. The exposure of presumptions is best done in company, the more argumentative the better."
Nice post again; thanks a lot !!!👍👍👍
It will be a difficult endeavor, in an entirely commodified and tokenized world ...
The first part of this post talking about our many cognitive biases and how they preclude us from being able to accept logical arguments rings true to me in my personal experience. But this idea that being in a group somehow dissolves these problems requires some more scrutiny. "Group-think" is generally not a term used to described enlightened thinking and for good reason. What happens when a majority of the group is biased, as it clear so many individuals are?
Looking at your examples of good group thinking, it seems most of the studies are testing pure logical thinking in which the possibility of members having a bias towards one answer or another is highly unlikely. But we know most problems humans consider don't fall into these neat categories.
Another of your examples talks about doctors discussing a diagnosis, but this is another rather specialized form of group decision making. All of the members have extensive education in the topic being discussed and all of them are trained in the process of diagnosis. Is this really applicable to group thinking in other contexts?
You also point out a study which shows "humans are pretty good at spotting the biases of others", but looking at the abstract of the study, this phenomenon may only serve to reinforce our own biases. From the cited study abstract, "Although this blind spot regarding one's own biases may serve familiar self-enhancement motives, it is also a product of the phenomenological stance of naive realism."
The most ideal circumstance of group thinking I can imagine is a jury in a trial. Clearly in this case a group is preferable, but a veritable mountain of legal procedures are in place to prevent bias from entering into the group, and usually decisions are only made through overwhelming majorities.
So I guess the conclusion we can draw is that group thinking may be preferable to individual thinking, but only with the important caveat that none of the members of the group are significantly biased in their thinking on the topic at hand.
All good points. There are many biases and I'm not suggesting group work is a universal cure-all. Bias will always be running in the background. Humans will need to develop a suite of tools, of which group problem solving will likely be one. I suspect we need a culture that stresses bias detection. It should be seen as the lurking Boogeyman we need to be on guard against and others might help us see where we're going astray.
Well I admire your commitment to making people think more rationally, though of late I have started to think that the exercise may be in vain. I see the billions spent on manipulating people's thoughts, whether it be election campaigns, advertising campaigns, or just straight state propaganda, and I see just how depressingly effective it all is. For every psychiatrist spending their free time encouraging people towards better critical thinking skills, there is at least one other person out there making wheelbarrows full of cash utilizing their knowledge of the human mind to identify it's weakness and develop methods by which those weaknesses can be most easily exploited.
I have read (admittedly secondhand) that in Plato's Republic, Socrates likens the state to a ship, and that the uneducated voting on policy is as illogical as a ship taken over by a crew with no knowledge of sailing. I would go even further to say that most times even the well-educated are easily fooled/clueless, and that the idea that people can run a state by voting is hopelessly idealistic. The people who are really in charge are the people who control the messaging, the people who can purchase advertising, and the people who know how to manipulate others.
One might say well, if we only educated people better in the methods of critical appraisal and independent thinking, we might create people better immune to manipulation. Maybe, but what leader or group of oligarchs running a country wants their citizens to be more independent minded? It would be like trying to herd cats to get your citizens behind any major wars you want. A bunch of Socrates fans running around questioning everything, pure chaos! Try getting them to march in formation and shoot the people you point at, Ha! good luck.
So while I still debate and argue and pursue methods for better learning and reaching others in my personal life, I am of the mind that on a population-wide scale it's best to just admit people are easily manipulated, and try and figure out how to put someone in charge of the information flows that at least has good intentions towards the citizenry. Free speech and free inquiry are out of style these days and I am sad to admit I have also lost hope in their promise.
Great article thanks friend 🤗
However, what about the phenomenon of groupthink, herd mentality and echo chambers? 🤷♂️
Studies have found that small groups (usually 3-8 people) working through problems that haven't already been "solved" work well. If you bring together six people who already believe that 3+3=6 and task them with finding out was 3+3 equals, you're unlikely to get any substantive discussion, let alone a surprising answer. They'll all just affirm what they believe to be obvious. You either need to ask them about something unknown, or involve people with opposing views. Echo chambers are presumably large groups who aren't really discussing so much as affirming what they or their authority figure believes. But combating confirmation bias is complicated and I'd like to spend more time going over the data in the future.
I think there is a good distinction here between the power of sharing thoughts publicly and the power of a diversified group vs "groupthink"
Also give me an open-minded and attentive audience and i'll prove your assertion that "conspiracy beliefs are correctable" to be entirely unfounded. ( :