The reasoning theists, atheists, liberals, libertarians, & conservatives of Secular Bible Study, First Minneapolis Circle of Reason, Circle of Ijtihad, & Winnipeg Circle of Reason join Interbelief Conversation Café for our 313th Plurationalist (Interbelief Reasoning) Dialogue by Zoom, “How Does One Debate Groupthink?"
“Groupthink “emerges organically within groups that prioritize harmony over critical analysis. It seeks to present a united front to others, by stereotyping outsiders, peer-pressure, and self-censorship. Individuals in the group may know better, or hold different opinions, but stay silent to “go along with the crowd”:
After the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy sought to avoid repetition of groupthink among his advisors during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. He invited outside experts to their meetings, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He encouraged group members to discuss alternative solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and even divided the group into subgroups to counterbalance instinctive group cohesion. Kennedy finally absented himself from the advisors’ internal meetings, to avoid pressing his own opinion as their leader. – Paraphrased from Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
In its organic social origin, groupthink is distinct from overt “indoctrination” -- which instead is imparted intentionally within a group by its institutional leadership or chief authority figures, who instill specific dogmatic beliefs and behaviors by suppressing facts, relying on propaganda, and actively penalizing dissent rather than relying on peer-pressure. Individuals in an indoctrinated group usually genuinely believe the doctrine -- as their ability to question it may have been systematically removed unless or until overt logical inconsistencies in the group or its doctrine cause a crisis of belief by indoctrinated followers, which can lead to adoption of ways to debate the group from within:
Healing the wounds of ostracism or belief trauma allows someone to participate ― or not ― in organized community without being vulnerable and needy in environments that may want something from them or to exploit them, while maintaining their ability to think critically. Being strong individuals who know themselves, and have the capacity to serve or give from a healthy place, also reduces the chances they’ll be manipulated by groupthink... Learning to name my own experiences was a massive, pivotal shift. “Naming” corrected gaslighting… and demystified harmful social dynamics. Naming experiences correctly also helped me identify systemic harm…I felt like finding adequate language restored sanity. -- Paraphrased from Tia Levings, author & former religious fundamentalist, in Bologna C (2026). “Church Hurt” is a very real thing. Here's what experts want you to know about it. HuffPost (June 22).
In extremely indoctrinated groups that have led to coercive physical or sexual abuse of members or their children, such internal crises of belief vs. reality can lead to fragmentation of the community, and to members leaving entirely, by their independently resorting to one last reasoning tactic:
The escape of Lindsay Tornambe and another woman from the “Maiden cult” that trapped their families wasn’t simply from a religion, but from something so insidious it traps many of us. That evil was identified by Lindsay herself: “We didn’t really have a chance to think for ourselves.” – Paraphrased from Frank Burton, Exec. Director of The Circle of Reason, in Burton, F. (2014), The real power is in independent thinking. Minneapolis Star Tribune (Commentary) (Apr 17).
Groupthink may thus be more amenable to debate, especially by those within the group itself. Some tactics that may work for debating groupthink, but which might well fail regarding an indoctrinated group, include:
· Allow or assign a “Devil’s Advocate” – which won’t work IF the group actually thinks the debater is possessed by the Devil.
· Run a Dialectical Debate Between Two Assigned Subgroups – which won’t work IF one group thinks they’re "a host of angels" repelling a "satanic rebellion."
· Presume the Groupthink plan has failed catastrophically and order a “pre-mortem” to find out what flaws and risks could cause the future failure -- which won’t work IF a catastrophe, such as “Armageddon,” is actually the endpoint desire of the group.
· Leader Speaks Last -- which won’t work IF the leader is a charismatic dictator, like a priest, or a cult leader, or a charismatic CEO or President.
· Gather Independent Input First -- which won’t work IF the group and their leader say to totally refuse independent input, or only accept propagandistic input that treats them favorably.
· Use Anonymous Feedback -- which won’t work IF the group monitors its own people’s feedback and doesn’t listen to news or outside opinions.
· Bring in Outsiders -- which won’t work IF the group doesn’t welcome disruptive outsiders and welcomes only those who convert to the group’s worldview.
· Diversify the Team -- which won’t work IF the team will not tolerate doubt, or diverse or even disparate worldviews.
· Hold "Second Chance" Meetings -- which won’t work IF the community’s “second chance” is only given to a contrarian member as their LAST CHANCE to recant & repent before shunning or expulsion (or in extreme cases execution).
Consequently, debating Groupthink that has shifted into top-down indoctrination, or debating Groupthink as an outsider that is communicating with an insular self-motivated community, may require other specialized tactics:
· Initially bypass direct factual arguments to instead lower the groups’ emotional defense mechanisms, before focusing on noting internal logical contradictions they may have missed.
· Validate the group’s intent by first acknowledging their underlying positive values, feelings, or goals -- to show you aren’t a threat to these.
· Establish common ground by starting with stating the facts and experiences you share with the group.
· Request precise explanations for abstract concepts or slogans the group repeats.
· Ask how their solutions work step-by-step, rather than arguing why they may be wrong.
· Expose internal contradictions by highlighting, for their consideration, where their stated values appear to actively conflict.
· Ask how their principles would apply to extreme scenarios, to reveal any hidden logical breaking points.
· Be an interested learner asking tough questions, rather giving a critical review.
· Tell stories of other groups whose identical views instead caused harmful mistakes.
· Give them an honorable off-ramp to change their minds without feeling like they’ve betrayed their own group, rather than finding new ways to enhance it.
· Focus on encouraging rethinking by its undecided members, not by its dogmatic ones.
Finally, one can help debate groupthink by understanding oneself. Every human being will likely benefit from engaging and objectively reviewing & vetting not only the independently-constructed groupthink within their own groups and within disparate groups, but also by reviewing the independently-constructed individual worldviews and assumptions residing within ourselves -- so that we can not only make up our minds, but make them better.
At 7-9 pm CDT Mo 7/20/26 by Zoom we'll reasoningly share our diverse or even disparate worldviews on how, or whether, we should “Engage with the Borg” (in the words of Star Trek: The Next Generation). Meanwhile, our own INTERBELIEF reasoning dialogue’s agreements of open-mindedness, acceptance, curiosity, discovery, sincerity, brevity, & confidentiality should help us discuss our own different groups’ versions of groupthink, and the extent to which we might (or might not) be “going along to get along!”
