[StarSlayer]

Oh hell, I was having an interesting conversation...

I'd like to continue with the moderators benevolence to discuss the issue of how you can address psychological/group think issues without the engaging the form they manifest in.  Batts and Ryan obviously are on the same page on this and I'd like a gander at the book.

If your looking to argue against religion particularly GTFO.

Certainly I agree, but religion is one of the more efficient vehicles for focusing and exacerbating the sort of group think/outsider mentality that plagues us.  Most religious institutions do promote the idea that its followers are "on the path" and those who aren't are well not.  If you could exorcise (haha) that part out of those institutions they would be quite a bit less contentious.

Institutional reform isn't going to address the groupthink/collective consciousness issues of it's followers.  Take Christianity as an example.  While the Church (and several of its Protestant brethren) have officially thrown support behind evolutionary theory, can any of us take a guess at how many segmented collectives of Christians there are that are still staunch Creationists?  Another example - look at the decentralized nature of Islam.  Some Muslim groups are staunch advocates of human rights; others routinely condone the stoning of women for being raped.  These are not official, central teachings - they are beliefs that are constricted to and define core groups of individuals that socially operate as a whole.

Blaming the religion fails to address the issue.  So you magically reform religious institution - how do you propose to reform the social groups that previously identified with it and cling to their isolating social belief set?  Better yet, what are you going to do when governments do the same sorts of things (*coughGermanycirca1933-45Serbiacirca1990sIraqcirca2004Rwandacirca1990setcadnauseumcough*)?

I don't necessarily mean to make religion the punching bag particularly here.  I'm just unsure how you can address the issue effectively without engaging the vehicle.  I accept that the basic fundamentals of whats going on can be tied to primitive pack mentality, monkey brain stuff.  I accept they can manifest in a number of ways as you mentioned in your plehmy cough.  That said I don't think you can eliminate the motivator/vehicle for the actions taken against the student.  Certainly the motivator for all the reactions was the perceived attack on their religious beliefs.  That's the particular banner they chose to rally under.  Now I don't mean to make a swipe against all religious people, but in this instance for this group they are attacking him under a religious context.  I don't see how you can eliminate that from the equation, especially if you hope to combat it. 

[General Battuta]

I'm not sure anyone suggested eliminating it from the equation. But you realize that the objection to the thread in question concerned generalization, right?

[MP-Ryan]

Further to Battuta, retroactive recourse is always going to take the form of legal sanction against a discriminatory practice as forbidden in law.  That isn't up for debate - the actions of the community were ethically and legally wrong, and should be sanctioned as such.

The issue at hand is how to effectively combat groupthink and collective consciousness issues without invoking a generalized backlash against an entire institution.  In practice, they best way to combat groupthink is through diversification of belief and a focus placed on joint initiative where each party must be able to comprehend and negotiate both their interests and the interests of the adversary.

This premise has been put in place in diplomatic negotiation.  The fairly recent successes in the Northern Ireland peace process were largely brought about because each side was essentially forced to comprehend the other's position.  It undermines the unique characters that cause a social group to sink into a groupthink scenario.  This is also the tactic currently being expressed by Obama's team in their discussions concerning an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.  So long as each party focuses solely on their own interests, it's not going to happen - hence the current discussions percolating around 1967 borders.

Groupthink/collective consciousness is best diminished by expanding the parameters of the group.  Hence why something like assigning blame to a particular group in a generalized fashion doesn't work  - it causes reinforcement of the group itself.

[StarSlayer]

Sorry Batts I was kind of running a sideline discussion to LD's grand offensive.

Ryan that's certainly a sensible counter, though I wager it requires a fair degree of open mindedness from one or both parties, that or a particularly strong third party to knock some heads

[MP-Ryan]

Absolutely.  Both "sides" must have a vested interest in seeing an outcome, or a third-party that forces them to a negotiating table.

In the context of the Louisiana situation, the best way to address the actions of the community is not to criticize their belief system (and thus reinforce their investment in it) but to foster understanding of the student's position in terms they can use to psychologically include said student in the social group.  Beating groupthink is about breaking down social boundaries and emphasizing inclusive commonalities between all the parties, not further psychologically isolating a collective.  While that can sound vaguely like victim-blaming when the collective is a majority, challenging groupthink is a difficult undertaking.

Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" is a good read for anyone and tackles some aspects of groupthink as an incidental discussion.  If you're interested is this sort of thing, it's worth picking up (and fairly short).

[Mongoose]

I should sic Ryan on a thread in another forum of mine, where apparently Obama is "starting the next war" by calling for adherence to those 1967 borders.

[MP-Ryan]

I should sic Ryan on a thread in another forum of mine, where apparently Obama is "starting the next war" by calling for adherence to those 1967 borders.

Tell them to read the entire history of Ireland, starting at about 1012 AD.