Apparently it's Tuesday again.
Today I want to talk to you about groups. Partly because next weekend I'm going to Kuopio to teach some kids how to lead scout groups and I'm avoiding trying to come up with something for Friday evening that would make the bunch of people that come there to form a group (a thing that I still after all these years of doing this suck at). And partly because how groups work is, I think, one of the most interesting things outside the natural sciences. Also a little because I need to build my group dynamics in Nocturne just right for any of it to make much sense, and trying to do that is a real pain.
One weird thing about groups is that they make more radical decisions than possibly any of the people in the group would make alone. It's called polarisation. And it's a really weird thing. And for some reason I can't remember why it happens even though I've read about it for at least two courses. I guess it has something to do with the fact that alone you can reach a decision, but when there are more of you, you can keep talking even after you personally have reached a decision, and the conversation easily shifts into one direction or another, so in the end the group's final collective decision is more radical than what the people would come to alone.
I apparently suck at remembering theories having to do with groups even though I'm really interested in them and actually want to remember them.
Possibly another thing that contributes to decision-making in groups is that people don't want to lose face. The politeness theory, that doesn't have anything to do with strictly groups, though is also applicable for groups, basically says people try to not lose face, but also try to save face for others, so that they aren't humiliated. You can use embarrassing or irrational reasons when making a decision yourself inside your head, but some things you might not want to share with a group. Then again, if someone does suggest something radical, you might not simply tell them their idea is idiotic, because it would be embarrassing for the person to be shot down like that, and so the whole group is shifted into thinking about more extreme options.
And yes, of course there are people who would tell the other person their idea is idiotic, but those people are easily seen as jerks, and most people don't want to be seen as jerks.
Groups are very complicated. In groups people want to look good, and they might agree with other people simply to fit in, whether they knew it or not. You can actually make people believe they are wrong about something very trivial that they are obviously right about, if other people in the group simply disagree. The people of the group don't even have to know each other. It's enough that you think you'll embarrass yourself by disagreeing with the others, because why would everyone else be wrong about something so very trivial? It must be you are wrong yourself. And even if you know you're right, when having your turn to say something, you might agree with the others, for the simple fear of being different.
That's what I guess a lot of the ways groups work boils down to. The fear of being different. To agreeing with the group simply to not lose face, to not get looked at weird, to belong to the group. And that is both stunningly terrifying, because you can make people do and believe things they would never consider doing if they weren't so desperately to fit in and be a part of something (and I note again: people don't necessarily try to fit in consciously, the need to belong to a group is too deep down in humanity for us to always even notice that's what we're doing), and sad.
It's sad, because if everyone in the world agreed on everything, the world would be a lot poorer place, There would be no innovation, no new things, ever. Just think about if all early humans had agreed just to fit in that fire is a dangerous and evil thing that you should never go anywhere near. We would still be living on an African savannah. Almost everything in the world we live today would not be there, if everyone had agreed with the group.
We wouldn't have democracy, if everyone agreed with the group. Because democracy is based on looking at different points of views, arguing rationally for and against all of them, and choosing the one that most likely leads to the best outcome for everyone.
Of course, if you look at current Finnish democracy, it doesn't exactly work like that. I still haven't seen that one election debate that I think came out on mtv3, but I've seen the headlines that came after and said that the party leaders in this country sound like ten-year-olds fighting in the sandbox. I guess they didn't try to fit in.
Though then again, maybe they were. They were (to my understanding) all acting the same. Even though they disagreed about the things they were discussing, the group very quickly developed itself a culture in which acting like a ten-year-old is ok.
I still keep wondering what would have happened if one of them had just sat quietly, raised their hand and waited for their turn while the others yelled irrationally at each other. But no, the group made everyone feel like they must talk while someone else was still talking in order to get their message through.
How did I get here?
Right, groups.
My point is, how groups work how their existence alters people's behaviour is infinitely complex and so very fascinating try to figure out.
I'll hear from you on Friday.
~matu
No comments:
Post a Comment