61–70 of 86 posts
"In one fourth-grade classroom I visited in New York City, students engaged in group work were forbidden to ask a question unless every member of the group had the very same question." This is the essence of what's so destructive and horrifying about today's obsession with groups: the idea that everyone in the group is equal. Equal in talent, equal in work ethic, equal in drive, and equally entitled to being heard. A…
In East Germany, toddlers and grade schoolers were required to go to the bathroom together, with no partitions between the toilets. Privacy was irrelevant because individualism was irrelevant. Even extending into bathroom habits the communist goal was to make people cogs. I'm sure this seemed like "scientific management" to them, and I bet many of them have no idea why it failed. At my last job, all the programmers w…
Oh please, what a ridiculous example to bring up in the context of the rest of your post. The GDR did not fail because of a different approach to bathroom privacy for small children. It might seem weird to us, but our comfort zone is a completely arbitrary area along a scale. Note that western urinals work in basically the same way; I'm sure there's a huge political significance to that.
What I find gross is that the article somehow considers cubicles as a "private" solution. This modern management cargo cult has reached really gross levels of absurdity. If open plan is a cacophony of voices amidst which a person is to find focus and deep thinking, then cubicles are the same cacophony without the peripheral vision part. I find teamwork, collaboration and such bullshit words just a mask for true motiv…
"In one fourth-grade classroom I visited in New York City, students engaged in group work were forbidden to ask a question unless every member of the group had the very same question." This is the essence of what's so destructive and horrifying about today's obsession with groups: the idea that everyone in the group is equal. Equal in talent, equal in work ethic, equal in drive, and equally entitled to being heard. A…
Variance is the reason groups can be powerful.
I've been grouped with people who always try to find a reason for something not to work. Their worldview seems very limited in that they never push the status quo; they don't seem to look very far into the future and they can't seem to recognize what's possible with some hard work. Maybe they are afraid to step outside of their comfort zone. They would probably call themselves realists. Coincidentally enough, through my personal experience, I've found that these types of people tend to be "control freaks". (Sorry for lack of a better word.) There's definitely some correlation between trying to control situations and only attempting what is a sure thing.
I've also been grouped with people who, like me, are constantly trying to do things differently for the better. For every idea, they try to figure out how and why it will work, if it isn't immediately obvious; but if they don't also take time to determine whether or not it is the best solution, it could be detrimental in the long run. This is where the qualities of each person within the group becomes important. Not everyone can find the balance between dreams and reality; more often than not people lean towards one side so they need to be paired with someone on the other.
Too many realists in a group and you'll see little to no innovation. Too many dreamers in a group and you may never see the project's completion. Although I personally would put my money on the latter any day.
But if one person can find that balance by themselves, I think that's when creativity (and sometimes productivity) exceeds that of a group.
"In one fourth-grade classroom I visited in New York City, students engaged in group work were forbidden to ask a question unless every member of the group had the very same question." This is the essence of what's so destructive and horrifying about today's obsession with groups: the idea that everyone in the group is equal. Equal in talent, equal in work ethic, equal in drive, and equally entitled to being heard. A…
I have to ask the question: does the points system at HN promote groupthink?
I have a faulty logic. When I post something controversial, I often feel insightful while drafting it, but my 'spider sense tingles' because I innately fear downvotes. If it does, then I get upset because I feel that I made myself vulnerable by sharing something I should have kept quiet since it was not popular. Since an account apparently becomes 'dead' after enough downvoting, this is roughly being punished, at least digitally.
The faulty logic really kicks in when I use the same expectation of group reaction to garner upvotes. I feel satisfied when I get 10 or 15 upvotes, even though those posts are very often just aligned with what I suspect is popular opinion. I feel great, but gloss over the reality that I didn't really add anything new. It's like eating some chicken mcnuggets - I didn't really get anything out of it but it felt good.
There's a sort of protective stance people use in online posts, a deflection of anticipated peer reaction. Comment armor. "I know I'll get downvoted for this", "I know I'll get a -1 flamebait", "karma be damned" etc. We see this posturing all the time on karma based websites. Watch, I'll do this exact procedure in my closing sentence.
I know we're not supposed to complain about downvoting but I believe that's in a meta sense and since this topic is about groupthink, I believe it's relevant to discuss as part of the topic.
In East Germany, toddlers and grade schoolers were required to go to the bathroom together, with no partitions between the toilets. Privacy was irrelevant because individualism was irrelevant. Even extending into bathroom habits the communist goal was to make people cogs. I'm sure this seemed like "scientific management" to them, and I bet many of them have no idea why it failed. At my last job, all the programmers w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In one fourth-grade classroom I visited in New York City, students engaged in group work were forbidden to ask a question unless every member of the group had the very same question." I'm going to guess that the idea here is that if someone in the group has a question, and another member of the group knows the answer, then they can resolve it within the group. Funny how the same thing can be framed so differently is…
So if anyone in your group insists he knows the answer, you're out of luck. Reframe: The blind leading the blind. So if anyone in your group doesn't care about your question, you're out of luck. Reframe: I don't know why I even bother. So if anyone in your group is more interested in a different question, you're both out of luck. Reframe: Sorry, class, we're out of time. Yes, it's funny how many ways a bad idea can b…
The sister comment from another teacher brings facts to the table that explain the intent of the exercise, which is limited in scope and aimed for a specific purpose. Good or bad it is a game to attempt to teach kids it is ok to admit they don't know and to ask for help from their peers. If you consider how often and how ennervating it is when our adult colleagues can't admit not knowing, I think you can understand why someone crafted this exercise.
"In one fourth-grade classroom I visited in New York City, students engaged in group work were forbidden to ask a question unless every member of the group had the very same question." This is the essence of what's so destructive and horrifying about today's obsession with groups: the idea that everyone in the group is equal. Equal in talent, equal in work ethic, equal in drive, and equally entitled to being heard. A…
I have to ask the question: does the points system at HN promote groupthink?
Even without votes, groupthink would emerge from reply comments giving positive and negative feedback as well.
If the group thinkers can re-invent Bolshevism for the classroom and the workplace, allow me to invent my own journalistic sociological gloss to bring attention to a physiological trend that the group thinkers might not appreciate. It is an anthropological finding that the human brain decreased in volume by 10% — about the size of a tennis ball — around the dawn of civilization 20,000 years ago. It is believed that t…
This is very interesting, especially in light of certain software development approaches such as XP, where you're told to work in pairs as much as possible. Many people argue that you haven't truly experienced teamwork until you've pair developed for a whole workday together for months at a time. The approach works for several companies, Pivotal Labs comes to mind. I've personally experienced benefits of that work st…
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that pair programming wasn't meant to be for more than a few hours a day (like 4). An agile coach I know agreed with this. But I can't easily find this caveat on the net.