Jihadism is this century’s nightmare

Reasons to agree:

1. Jihadist are the only people who would use a nuclear weapon against a democratic country. +1


2. Jihadist threaten the future of the middle east. 


3. A nuclear weapon would destroy men, women, children.


4. Jihadist are the only people currently advocating genocide. 


5. A modern nuclear weapon would make land un-usable for thousands of years.


6. Some of the people who die from Alcohol, are just killing themselves. Those who would be killed from a nuclear bomb, would be mostly innocent.


7. There can be more than one nightmare. China could go bad, but Jihadism is more likely to.


8. Jihadist could start a war with Pakistan.


9. Jihadist are killing and displacing thousands in Africa.


10. Jihadist have exploded transportation in the United States, Spain, and England.


11. Jihadist are trying to take over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. They are a significant force in Syria.


12. Many Jihadist deny the Holocaust.


13. Many Jihadist want to destroy Israel.


14. There is no force on the planet, not communism or anything else, that unifies people with so much hatred as Jihadism.


15. Ana says; "Everyone should educate themselves on Islam, its history and on the radical element. One will find that whenever Muslims gain political power all non-Muslims are second class citizens unless they convert. Often Jews and Christians are killed as part of gaining power. Sharia law is every Judeo-Christian's, and other non-Mulsims nightmare. In fact, what is occuring is the demise of the American experiment, with its reliance on the Natural Law and Judeo-Christian, Greek Roman heritage by the influx of too, many immigrants too fast, multi-culturalism and secularism. May God have mercy on those of us who forget this great gift to the human race and who do nothing to defend it."

Reasons to disagree:

1. Alcohol is a bigger problem for America than terrorism. +7


2. The collapse of the American family is a bigger problem than terrorism

Score: 

At a later date, the reasons, books, and web-pages will be given a score. They will then contribute a percentage of a point to the overall idea score, based on their individual score. Below are the total number of:

Reasons to agree: +15

Reasons to disagree: -2

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +1, -7

Books that agree: +0 

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0 

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 7

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

We must constantly challenge bureaucratic group think

Reasons to agree:

1. A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled.


2. Don't worry about people stealing an idea. You will have to ram it down their throats if it's original. ~Howard Aiken


3. Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups

Reasons to disagree:

1.  "None of Us is as Good as All of Us." Ray Kroc. This kind of thinking says that bureaucracy can outperform individuals. Sometimes this is true. But not in novels or paintings. Good movies are based on books written by people, not groups. And most screenplays are not written by groups of people. However, movies are made by a committee... sort of... someone has to be in charge, but group things kind of happen... America has groupthink...

Score: 

At a later date, the reasons, books, and web-pages will be given a score. They will then contribute a percentage of a point to the overall idea score, based on their individual score. Below are the total number of:

Reasons to agree: +3

Reasons to disagree: -1

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0 

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0 

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 2

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

Logical Arguments - Pros:

1. Challenging bureaucratic groupthink encourages innovation and creative problem-solving.
2. It promotes diversity of thought and can lead to better decision-making processes.
3. Challenging groupthink can expose and correct inefficiencies within the system.
4. It helps prevent the "blind leading the blind" scenario and potential cascading failures.

Logical Arguments - Cons:

1. Constantly challenging bureaucratic groupthink can disrupt the efficiency and slow down decision-making processes.
2. It may lead to conflict and reduce cohesiveness among members of an organization.
3. Too many differing opinions might paralyze the decision-making process.

Evidence (data, studies):

1. Studies from social psychology on groupthink, such as Irving Janis's seminal work, that demonstrate the potential pitfalls of groupthink.
2. Case studies of bureaucratic failures attributed to groupthink, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, NASA's Challenger disaster, etc.
3. Research showing the positive effects of diverse viewpoints and constructive dissent in decision-making.

Books:

1. "Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes" by Irving L. Janis.
2. "Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter" by Cass R. Sunstein and Reid Hastie.

Videos:

1. TED Talks discussing the danger of groupthink and the importance of dissent and diversity of thought.
2. Documentaries or case study analyses of historical events impacted by groupthink.

Organizations and their Websites:

1. The American Psychological Association (APA) and its resources on group dynamics and groupthink.

Podcasts:

1. "Hidden Brain" by NPR often discusses social psychology topics, including groupthink.
2. "Freakonomics Radio" has episodes discussing bureaucracy and decision-making.

Unbiased experts:

1. Irving L. Janis, psychologist and groupthink researcher.
2. Cass R. Sunstein, legal scholar and author who writes extensively on group dynamics.

Benefits of belief acceptance (ranked by Maslow categories):

1. Self-actualization: Encourages personal growth and critical thinking.
2. Esteem: Promotes self-respect and the respect of others for independent thought.
3. Love/Belonging: Fosters a more inclusive and open environment for sharing ideas.
4. Safety: Helps prevent catastrophic decisions caused by groupthink.
5. Physiological: Better decisions can lead to improved physical well-being in certain contexts.

Ethics that should be used to justify this belief:

1. Intellectual Autonomy: The ability to think independently is crucial in challenging groupthink.
2. Respect for Diversity and Inclusion: Recognizing the value of different perspectives and experiences.

Remember, your input is vital for building a comprehensive, evidence-based understanding of this topic. Contribute to our collective intelligence initiative at Group Intel and Idea Stock

• Unstated Assumptions:

  1. Bureaucracies tend toward homogeneity of thought or groupthink.
  2. Dissenting views in bureaucracies are often suppressed or undervalued.
  3. Constant challenging of ideas can lead to better outcomes.
  4. The decision-making process in bureaucracies can accommodate constant challenges without paralyzing operations.

• Alternate Expressions:

  1. "The wisdom of crowds is often just the inertia of the status quo."
  2. "Bureaucratic complacency is the enemy of progress."
  3. Hashtag: #ChallengeGroupthink, #BreakTheBureaucracy, #InnovateNotStagnate

• Belief Validation Criteria:

  1. Evidence of poor decision-making or failures due to bureaucratic groupthink.
  2. Demonstrations of improved outcomes when dissent is encouraged.
  3. Empirical studies showing the negative effects of groupthink and the benefits of diverse thought.

• Key Stakeholders:

  1. Bureaucratic institutions and their leadership
  2. Employees within these bureaucracies
  3. Public citizens or entities affected by decisions made by these bureaucracies
  4. Policy and lawmakers who can affect change within these bureaucracies.

• Shared Interests:

  1. Efficient and effective decision-making
  2. Innovations and improvements within bureaucratic systems
  3. Transparency and accountability in decision-making processes.

• Differences and Obstacles:

  1. Resistance to change within established bureaucratic structures
  2. Fear of conflict or "rocking the boat"
  3. Ensuring dissenting voices are heard without overwhelming the decision-making process.

• Dialogue Strategies:

  1. Encourage open communication and the expression of diverse viewpoints.
  2. Foster an environment where challenging groupthink is seen as constructive rather than destructive.
  3. Develop protocols for assessing and integrating dissenting viewpoints into decision-making processes.

• Educational Resources:

  1. Books like "Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes" by Irving L. Janis
  2. Articles and research on organizational behavior and the effects of groupthink
  3. Lectures or talks on the importance of diversity of thought within organizational structures.

• Contextual Understanding:

  1. Groupthink: The practice of thinking or making decisions as a group, resulting typically in unchallenged, poor-quality decision-making.
  2. Bureaucracy: A system of government or organization in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.

Remember, your insights are vital to building a comprehensive, evidence-based understanding of this topic. Please contribute and explore these areas on our websites, Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange, as part of our collective intelligence initiative.