The Myth of Critical Thinking

Magical Realist said:
You speak for 6 people now?
Click to expand...
Anybody who thinks you're not an idiot is free to say so.

You're validating everything I postedaboutGroupthink..
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with "groupthink". We don't have meetings to decide what "we" think about other posters. We do compare our individual conclusions to check whether we're being objective.
 
sideshowbob said:
Anybody who thinks you're not an idiot is free to say so.
Click to expand...

Not if you assume you speak for them.

It has nothing to do with "groupthink". We don't have meetings to decide what "we" think about other posters. We do compare our individual conclusions to check whether we're being objective.
Click to expand...

You don't have to have meetings to build the sort of rewarding sense of power and consensus that comes from group think. You just have to interact and bond as a group against some demonized outsider while supporting the assumption of a unanimous set of dogmas.

"To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink.

Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

  • Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
  • Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Type II: Closed-mindedness

  • Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
  • Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

  • Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
  • Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
  • Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
  • Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
 
Magical Realist said:
Not if you assume you speak for them.
Click to expand...
I don't. I'm only stating my impression of what I think they think. That's why I invite them to dissent.

Youdon't have to have meetings to build the sort of rewarding sense of power and consensusthatcomesfromgroupthink.
Click to expand...
I don't get any "reward" from agreement. Truth be told, I like to take an unpopular position once in a while. Disagreement sharpens my thinking. But I recognize that I'm more likely to be right when I'm not the only one out in left field.
 
But I recognize that I'm more likely to be right when I'm not the only one out in left field.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad populum. In a forum of scientistic skeptics like this one, your position only represents agreement with the majority. In a forum of ufology, it would only represent disagreement with the majority. Doesn't indicate a thing about the truth or falsity of the position.
 
Magical Realist said:
Argumentum ad populum.
Click to expand...
Nope. Attempted objectivity.

Doesn'tindicate a thing about the truth or falsity of the position.
Click to expand...
That's your misunderstanding of perception talking again. I can be more confident about my own perceptions and my own conclusions if somebody else confirms them. If I'm the only one who sees something, or if I'm the only one who understands my logic or if somebody points out the flaws in my logic, I shouldn't be too confident.
 
sideshowbob said:
Nope. Attempted objectivity.


That's your misunderstanding of perception talking again. I can be more confident about my own perceptions and my own conclusions if somebody else confirms them. If I'm the only one who sees something, or if I'm the only one who understands my logic or if somebody points out the flaws in my logic, I shouldn't be too confident.
Click to expand...

It all depends upon the group you're in. You can be in a group who agrees with you, or you can be in a group that disagrees with you. Absolutely no indication of the truth or falsity of your position. But go ahead and express your unconditional faith in groupthink. It's amusing to watch.
 
Magical Realist said:
You can be in a group who agrees with you, or you can be in a group that disagrees with you.
Click to expand...
So, you're in a group here that disagrees with you. What makes you infallibly right when people keep pointing out the flaws in your thinking?

Is there a group somewhere that agrees with you? If so, how is your thinking not groupthink? And if not, what is it that makes you inherently and individually infallible?

It'samusing to watch.
Click to expand...
If I want a good laugh I just have to think of "samurai boots" and how you squirmed to explain away the obvious in favour of the preposterous. :D
 
So, you're in a group here that disagrees with you. What makes you infallibly right when people keep pointing out the flaws in your thinking?
Click to expand...

What's so hard about this? Like I said, the group's disagreement with me has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of my position on ghosts and ufos. It's just going against the majority groupthink here, which in most cases is viewed as an admirable thing. Group conformity is a weak and easy course to take. Thinking for yourself not so much.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
the group's disagreement with me has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of my position on ghosts and ufos.
Click to expand...
Their reasons for disagreeing with you have everything to do with it.

And you didn't answer the question: In a different forum far, far awsy, where everybody agrees with you, how is your thinking not groupthink?
 
Magical Realist said:
How does not being a member of a group make you not a member of group?
Click to expand...
Why are you avoiding the question? You claim to have thought up your ideas independently of the UFO/ghost groupthinkers. I claim to have thought up my ideas independent of the groupthinkers here. What's the difference?
 
sideshowbob said:
Why are you avoiding the question? You claim to have thought up your ideas independently of the UFO/ghost groupthinkers. I claim to have thought up my ideas independent of the groupthinkers here. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

You're part of the group here. In fact you openly tout agreement with this group as proof you are right. I'm not part of any such group where my opinion is the majority view. That's the difference.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
You're part of the group here. In fact you openly tout agreement with this group as proof you are right.
Click to expand...
No I don't. I tout agreement as the reason for my confinence. You, on the other hand, have only hubris as the source of your confidence.
 
Magical Realist said:
What's so hard about this? Like I said, the group's disagreement with me has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of my position on ghosts and ufos.
Click to expand...
What do you think it is then? People here just don't like you? Or they just don't like ghosts and ufos?

No wait, don't tell me. It's because the very idea of a ghost or a ufo threatens to undermine the group's worldview, and therefore it must be fought at all costs. Right?

Can you suggest why people flock to this silly "scientific" worldview, instead of sharing your sensible belief in ghosts and ufos? Is it out of fear of the unknown, perhaps? Or is it out of conformity with some idea of mainsteam boringness? Or what?

If none of this has anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of your position on ghosts and ufos, then what does it have to do with? I am interested to learn and I hope you can enlighten me.

Group conformity is a weak and easy course to take. Thinking for yourself not so much.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the reason people go in for that scientific evidence nonsense and the like is because it's easier than watching random ghost and ufo videos on youtube? It's because they are weak and lazy, and you are strong and active. Is that it?
 
Wow James. You must have a raging hate-on for me today. First you close my thread on Bigfoot for the made up excuse of "trolling". And now you dig up old posts in old threads and nitpick what I was saying to an entirely different poster. Did ya have a bad day today James? Am I to play your therapeutic whipping boy? I think not. How bout I just ignore your belligerent ass?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top