John Robb, "Brave New War", and Group Size

[selil]

Culpepper,

There are suggestions that you're right on target. In online traffic flow and posting analysis it often appears that a few percent of a group actually participate and create content whereas a larger volume of the group engages in commentary(synthesis). Finally the third group merely watches and doesn't participate other than to read passively(consumers). I'll link to the study that ZenPundit originally posted.

If you look at mafioso the family may be only 150 or so members, but the organization inclusive of the "clientèle" and such will be much larger. Similar I imagine to the dynamics of any organization.

John Robb talks about how the chosen activity of insurgents are in themselves force multipliers. After reading the book I thought about the content creation pyramid with the insurgent at the top. Each of the media outlets standing below and a pyramid of pyramids. Which creates an exponential growth in the effectiveness of the terrorist or insurgent. I may not be explaining that very well, but I'm looking at the effectiveness of the communication path.

[Culpeper]

It's just one of those things that cannot be avoided. Even the SWC is not immune to this phenomenon and I'm a little surprised that something that has been posted straight out of the SWC's overall recommendations to read throughout the forums by members is virtually ignored on this part of the book. As far as I know I'm the only one that has posted anything about this particular part of the book and the SWC itself out of concern. As with the topic of the insurgencies throughout the book, as the SWC grows in membership, it will or already has fallen victim to Robb's axiom. It is beginning to give the appearance of the same things we find fault with on topics such as COIN and the war on terror. Too much bureaucracy with sets and subsets. A think tank that has grown into a group think tank.

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

4. Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.

5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

8. Mind guards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

And as with a vast majority looking at mistakes and solutions for COIN, the SWC should be avoiding group think, and taking a look at Robb's description of the downfall of an online group in order to maintain effectiveness:


# The group should be made aware of the causes and consequences of group think.

# The leader should be neutral when assigning a decision-making task to a group, initially withholding all preferences and expectations. This practice will be especially effective if the leaders consistently encourages an atmosphere of open inquiry.

# The leader should give high priority to airing objections and doubts, and be accepting of criticism.

# Groups should always consider unpopular alternatives, assigning the role of devil's advocate to several strong members of the group.

# Sometimes it is useful to divide the group into two separate deliberative bodies as feasibilities are evaluated.

# Spend a sizable amount of time surveying all warning signals from rival group and organizations.

# After reaching a preliminary consensus on a decision, all residual doubts should be expressed and the matter reconsidered.

# Outside experts should be included in vital decision making.

# Tentative decisions should be discussed with trusted colleagues not in the decision-making group.

# The organization should routinely follow the administrative practice of establishing several independent decision-making groups to work on the same critical issue or policy.

Instead, the SWC has gone from a think tank to another online forum with the life expectancy of effectiveness no different than any other online group as Robb describes.

[marct]

Hi Culpeper,

As with the topic of the insurgencies throughout the book, as the SWC grows in membership, it will or already has fallen victim to Robb's axiom. It is beginning to give the appearance of the same things we find fault with on topics such as COIN and the war on terror. Too much bureaucracy with sets and subsets. A think tank that has grown into a group think tank.
...........
Instead, the SWC has gone from a think tank to another online forum with the life expectancy of effectiveness no different than any other online group as Robb describes.

I hate to say this, but it certainly isn't a new observation. This used to be called "Magic Numbers Theory" in social psychology and parts of sociology back in the 50's and 60's (although they based it on powers of 12) and, if you want to go further back, try re-reading Common Sense by Thos. Paine - he notes the same phenomenon.

You are right that there is certainly a potential for the SWC to grow into a group think tank (I like that phrase!), but I don't think it has happened yet. I do see some increase in the social boundary maintenance stuff going on - I'll admit that . I have a gut feeling, alright based on 20+ years of working with and looking at online communities, that what is happening is an attempt to redefine the code of sociability (the ROE). This does not, of necessity, require the SWC to adopt group think at the level of specifics - it can be done at the level of process (i.e. how we talk not what we say).

Marc

[Ken White]

"In your face" argumentive techniques are often mistaken for intellectual acuity and innovative thinking. Mostly all they do is start food fights.

As the old saw says, 'We can disagree without being disagreeable.'

Content, not method determines validity...

[marct]

Hi Ken,

Content, not method determines validity...

Thanks, and quite true. I think one of the greatest difficulties we have in this ype of forum, and by that I mean Computer Mediated Communications not the SWC , is that it is much harder for people to pick up the body language of the posted. Even these wonderful emoticons just don't capture the full range of body language (). So while I think it's imperative that we have a convention that says "we can agree to disagree", I think it's also imperative that we all be aware of this potential problem and try to do it in a fairly "polite" way - something that I really do find here . As my grandmother used to say, "politeness is the vasiline of social intercourse".

Marc

[Ken White]

Helps that they're willing to tell their grandkids things they learned from raising the kids parents that said parents have not yet discovered...

[Rob Thornton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
As with the topic of the insurgencies throughout the book, as the SWC grows in membership, it will or already has fallen victim to Robb's axiom. It is beginning to give the appearance of the same things we find fault with on topics such as COIN and the war on terror. Too much bureaucracy with sets and subsets. A think tank that has grown into a group think tank.
...........
Instead, the SWC has gone from a think tank to another online forum with the life expectancy of effectiveness no different than any other online group as Robb describes.

On Robb's axiom, I think it largely depends on if you take a deterministic approach to how things will unfold or a contentious one.

Just because a set of conditions exist that can be associated with another event, does not mean the outcome is predetermined, or even likely.

Since we are using SWC as means to consider Robb's point I point out some distinguishing features that I think lower the odds of its devolving into group-think:

1) A very diverse membership - in terms of geography, profession, education, experience, and perhaps to a lesser extent values (both religious and political)

2) Such diversity means that members are also shaped throughout their off-line life by competing perspectives - from yet further diversity

3) The production of "stuff" which brings revenue, prestige, business, etc. is pretty much absent at the council level. The lack of such goals which hinder moving forward so that the organization can get on to the next thing is evident by the way in which old threads are often brought back by new members with new questions or observations.

4) Accessibility - in terms of council members being able to ask the questions they'd like to ask, reply as they see fit (no time tables or suspenses). The rules are fairly simple and unrestrictive - primarily their function is to facilitate debate. This makes for inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness.

5) Intellectual burden of proof - If you write something or quote it, be prepared to qualify it, or its likely that on this diverse council, someone will have the background to call you on it. If that happens, council ethics require you to clarify your position, acknowledge the counter position, or face the consequences.

If we deviate too far from some of these features to accommodate any individual, a group could fall into group-think.

I have probably spent an equal amount of time on SWC writing and reading (I write slower so it all equals out). I have as much respect for those I've disagreed with as those who I've agreed with. You can't always get context to content on the first go around, and often I've found a at least one position within a greater argument that can be agreed upon.

SWC/SWJ/SWJ Blog is pretty dynamic when you consider Communities of Practice in general. The members largely police themselves, and care enough about the site to raise issues about its health, assist new members in contributing and maintaining a standard of inclusiveness to those willing to participate in the discussion of war and its related topics. As long as we continue to so, we will probably remain in good health.

Best regards, Rob

[Culpeper]

All good points, which I can't disagree, but I'm wondering if those that participate the most are actually below the range of 150 members. I don't know because I only participate on certain topics and on occassion have fallen under the table for breaking rules for which I take responsibility and was handled fairly. It is just a coincidence that I had a similar experience while reading that particular chapter of Robb's book and posting this thread. I guess on occassion I have participated as one that takes risks and overly optimistic as mentioned above as a sign of a member participating in group think (Illusion of Invulnerability).

SWC/SWJ/SWJ Blog is pretty dynamic when you consider Communities of Practice in general. The members largely police themselves, and care enough about the site to raise issues about its health, assist new members in contributing and maintaining a standard of inclusiveness to those willing to participate in the discussion of war and its related topics. As long as we continue to so, we will probably remain in good health.

That pretty much sums up my motivation for starting this thread to begin with. I like this site and we should review this topic from time-to-time to make sure we don't become ineffective as a group. As individuals we should all be aware of the causes and consequences of a group falling prey to group think. Including myself.