Post by fastwalker on Jul 19, 2005 11:09:36 GMT -5
I’ve asked myself many times, why is so difficult to get people on the various boards to look at the reality of a given situation / statement and analyze information from a logic assessment of known data, rather than an emotional based assessment?
At the same time, I also question the need of some to "attack" without provocation, any opinion, or commentary that is contrary to their own, and why some who appear to be logic thinking, seem willing to actively participate in these attack?
This is a paradoxical condition at best, when allegedly the goal of the boards is to assess and inform those involved with CMKX.
I was also curious as to whether or not an assessment of this paradoxical phenomenon could also be used to explain the “attack” mentality of the some, to aggressively denigrate another individual’s statement / data / opinion as invalid, simply because it appears to be contrary to their own? Is that activity based on individual preferences or is it in fact indicative of a much greater underlying mindset of each message board.
To that end, I went back over some of my previous postings from the CMKX boards and other postings from other boards that I contribute to, basically to see if I had anything that might explain this paradox?
What I came across from some other discussion board on business, was actually very interesting information that may be relevant to answering my question. It deals with what we in business management refer to as the “Abilene paradox.”
The short version of the Abilene Paradox is that it explains a condition which is a paradox that is defined as one viewed with regards to the limits a particular situation force onto a group of people to act in a way that is directly the opposite of their actual preferences.
This conditional phenomenon occurs when groups continue with any misguided activities which no group member desires because no member is willing to raise objections.
This condition was observed by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in his 1988 book The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management. The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote in the book which Harvey uses to elucidate the paradox, as follows:
On a hot afternoon in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene (53 miles away) for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea."
Although he has reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinking that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group the husband says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."
The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.
One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it." The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic.
The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.
The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.
The above example illustrates a paradox phenomenon often used to explain what is referred to as groupthink.
It is explained within social psychology theories of social conformity and social cognition that suggest, human beings often feel great disincentives to acting in a manner contrary to the trend of the group.
Likewise, it can be observed in psychology that indirect cues and hidden motives often lie behind peoples' statements and acts, frequently because social disincentives may exist which preclude individuals from openly voicing their feelings or pursuing their desires.
While the theory presented here is often used to help explain extremely poor business decisions, it is my opinion that it does not apply to the CMKX management per se, especially since it involves the notion of the superiority of "rule by committee." We see, or at least are allowed to believe, based on available data that UC entirely controls and makes all decisions relevant to the activity, non activity of CMKX proper.
But, we are using this explanation to illuminate the mindset of the group (shareholders) and therefore, we can view the process as it mentioned, simply as a caveat to ask ourselves when confronted with information / data that seems to good to be true, or lacking in apparent validity within the context of CMKX, are group members capable of making individual decisions, or should they ask each other, "Are we going to Abilene?" to determine whether their decision is legitimately desired by the group's members or merely a result of this kind of groupthink.
Bottom line with where I wanted this thought conversation to go?
People can make decisions based not on what they actually want to do, but on what they think that other people want to do, with the result that everybody decides to do something that nobody really wants to do, but only what they thought that everybody else wanted to do.
Which brings me to one final, at least for this post, observation and that is the paradox of Denial.
Which simply asks....How can one accept oneself as one is, if one is not the way one thinks one should be? Yet, how does one effectively change oneself without accepting oneself as one is, and working from that?
Take care
Fw
At the same time, I also question the need of some to "attack" without provocation, any opinion, or commentary that is contrary to their own, and why some who appear to be logic thinking, seem willing to actively participate in these attack?
This is a paradoxical condition at best, when allegedly the goal of the boards is to assess and inform those involved with CMKX.
I was also curious as to whether or not an assessment of this paradoxical phenomenon could also be used to explain the “attack” mentality of the some, to aggressively denigrate another individual’s statement / data / opinion as invalid, simply because it appears to be contrary to their own? Is that activity based on individual preferences or is it in fact indicative of a much greater underlying mindset of each message board.
To that end, I went back over some of my previous postings from the CMKX boards and other postings from other boards that I contribute to, basically to see if I had anything that might explain this paradox?
What I came across from some other discussion board on business, was actually very interesting information that may be relevant to answering my question. It deals with what we in business management refer to as the “Abilene paradox.”
The short version of the Abilene Paradox is that it explains a condition which is a paradox that is defined as one viewed with regards to the limits a particular situation force onto a group of people to act in a way that is directly the opposite of their actual preferences.
This conditional phenomenon occurs when groups continue with any misguided activities which no group member desires because no member is willing to raise objections.
This condition was observed by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in his 1988 book The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management. The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote in the book which Harvey uses to elucidate the paradox, as follows:
On a hot afternoon in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene (53 miles away) for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea."
Although he has reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinking that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group the husband says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."
The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.
One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it." The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic.
The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.
The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.
The above example illustrates a paradox phenomenon often used to explain what is referred to as groupthink.
It is explained within social psychology theories of social conformity and social cognition that suggest, human beings often feel great disincentives to acting in a manner contrary to the trend of the group.
Likewise, it can be observed in psychology that indirect cues and hidden motives often lie behind peoples' statements and acts, frequently because social disincentives may exist which preclude individuals from openly voicing their feelings or pursuing their desires.
While the theory presented here is often used to help explain extremely poor business decisions, it is my opinion that it does not apply to the CMKX management per se, especially since it involves the notion of the superiority of "rule by committee." We see, or at least are allowed to believe, based on available data that UC entirely controls and makes all decisions relevant to the activity, non activity of CMKX proper.
But, we are using this explanation to illuminate the mindset of the group (shareholders) and therefore, we can view the process as it mentioned, simply as a caveat to ask ourselves when confronted with information / data that seems to good to be true, or lacking in apparent validity within the context of CMKX, are group members capable of making individual decisions, or should they ask each other, "Are we going to Abilene?" to determine whether their decision is legitimately desired by the group's members or merely a result of this kind of groupthink.
Bottom line with where I wanted this thought conversation to go?
People can make decisions based not on what they actually want to do, but on what they think that other people want to do, with the result that everybody decides to do something that nobody really wants to do, but only what they thought that everybody else wanted to do.
Which brings me to one final, at least for this post, observation and that is the paradox of Denial.
Which simply asks....How can one accept oneself as one is, if one is not the way one thinks one should be? Yet, how does one effectively change oneself without accepting oneself as one is, and working from that?
Take care
Fw
