Every organization needs clear leadership, lines of authority and responsibility

Reasons to agree:

1. If you don't have clear leadership, an organization can be like a car with two steering wheels: more likely to go in the right overall direction but less likely to stay on the road. If you had 2 steering wheels, and whoever turned the hardest would get their way, you might be going in the right direction more often. In the same way, some people say that 2 heads are better than one. This is true to a degree, but every organization needs to have clear responsibility so that someone can take responsibility, conflict is reduced, etc.
2. Challenging bureaucratic groupthink encourages innovation and creative problem-solving.
3. It promotes diversity of thought and can lead to better decision-making processes.
4. Challenging groupthink can expose and correct inefficiencies within the system.
5. It helps prevent the "blind leading the blind" scenario and potential cascading failures.

Logical Arguments - Cons:

1. Constantly challenging bureaucratic groupthink can disrupt 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.

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: +1

Reasons to disagree: -0

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: 1

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.

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.

• 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.

The way the government structures its foreign affairs assets is bad +5

Reasons to agree:

1. There is no unity among our international nonmilitary resources (state department, etc).


2. There is no clear leadership and no clear line of authority in our international nonmilitary resources (state department, etc).


3. The armed forces removed barriers to unify efforts across the services. This included establishing 'joint commands' with individual commanders fully responsible for their geographic region. We should do the same thing with the state department, and other nonmilitary assets that the government has.


4. Every organization needs clear leadership, lines of authority and responsibility. 

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: +4

Reasons to disagree: -0

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +1

Books that agree: +0 

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0 

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 5

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.

American foreign affairs are plagued by bureaucratic inaction

Reasons to agree:

1. 
   

   
   The way the government structures its foreign affairs assets is bad.

   
   
   
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

The Clinton Administration tried to dismantle our intelligence community

Reasons to agree:

1. 
   

   
   During the Clinton Administration, our intelligence community was critically weakened. The CIA workforce was slashed by almost 20% and recruitment was reduced dramatically, undermining effective human intelligence.

   
   
   
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Books that agree?

We should allow users to suggest books as reasons to agree or disagree with an idea. 

If these books were used as data points and were associated as reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion, we could use an algorithm to lend strength to an idea based on the books strength. Data is readily available from Amazon or E-bay or the New York Times best selling list of how well a book has sold.

So there would be three fields. One place where you submit the item that agrees or disagrees with the original idea. The second field would let you classify the object. Is it a book, a website, or simply alogical argument. The third field would be a place where the user explains why he thinks the book supports the conclusion that he/she has come to. Of course, people would be allowed to vote weather or not the book actually does support the side that the original user said that it would.

This is where the algorithm could get very sophisticated. Would you want to give more credibility to those who said they had actually read the book? Would you want to give even more credibility to those who had bought the book, as more proof that they actually read the book. Or how about people that used the website mediachest and could prove that they have the book, by the fact that they have let others use the book. What about people who wrote an essay on the book on the website. If Google was doing this, they could provide a place for users to write essays on books, similar to howAmazon lets users write essays. Perhaps they could not let people copy and paste essays into the form. It would only allow people to type their essays directly, to prevent stealing of essays. Perhaps people could vote on weather the book-essays were good or not similar to how Amazon lets users rate reviews, as to weather the review was "helpful" or not.

So, as an example, you could submit a best selling book as a reason to agree with an idea, and then right a thoroughly convincing explanation of why this book agrees with the idea, and an essay that proves that you understand the main points of the book.

If Google really wants to organize the worlds information, they must do this. We have plenty of books, we have plenty of content on the internet. We need ways of organizing this information into what it all means, and how all this information should affect us. The only good way information can affect us, is for it to help us make better decisions. In order for us to make better decisions, we must know all of the reasons to agree or disagree with a particular course of action. In order to do this, we should not start at ground zero, with only our own thoughts in our head. We should bring together all of thegreat thinkers from the ages from every corner of the planet, and organize all of their great thoughts, so that we can make the right decisions.

As you can see, this algorithm could be very simple, but it could also offer programmers hundreds of years of challenges to make it more sophisticated. I believe this is a strength of the idea, because it allows for continual improvement.

We should encourage users to propose books as materials that substantiate or refute an idea. 

These books, when correlated with either agreement or disagreement towards a given stance, can serve as data points in fortifying the weight of an idea via an algorithmic approach. This concept capitalizes on the readily accessible data from platforms like [Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/), [eBay](https://www.ebay.com/), or the [New York Times best-selling list](https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/), showcasing the popularity or sales of a particular book.

The process comprises three parts: submission, classification, and explanation. Firstly, users submit an item that either supports or opposes the original idea. Secondly, they classify the nature of the item, identifying whether it is a book, website, or a logical argument. Lastly, they elaborate on why they believe this item buttresses the conclusion they've drawn. We must permit the voting process where others can judge whether the book genuinely supports the position suggested by the original user.

From here, we can delve into a more advanced algorithmic level. We could consider granting more credibility to users claiming they've read the book or providing even greater credibility to those who have purchased it, serving as additional evidence of reading. Users registered on platforms like [MediaChest](https://www.mediachest.com/), validating their possession of the book by sharing it with others, could also earn higher credibility. The depth of user interaction, such as writing an essay about the book, can further contribute to credibility. If [Google](https://www.google.com/) were to facilitate this, they could offer users a platform for book-related essays, much like [Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/) allows users to review. To deter plagiarism, we could restrict users from pasting essays into the form, requiring direct typing. Furthermore, we could incorporate a voting system for the quality of book-essays, similar to Amazon's "helpful" review ratings.

For example, you could propose a best-selling book as an argument in favor of an idea, supplemented with a compelling explanation of the book's agreement and an essay evidencing comprehension of the book's key points.

If Google is committed to organizing the world's information, this is an essential step. We have an abundance of books and online content; our challenge lies in curating this information to draw meaningful conclusions influencing us. This information should ideally guide us in making better decisions. To make well-informed decisions, we need to understand all reasons to agree or disagree with a particular course of action. Rather than starting from scratch with our ideas, we should amalgamate the thoughts of profound thinkers throughout history and across the globe, organizing these insights to assist us in making the right choices.

This algorithmic approach could begin as a simple idea but offers the potential for continual development and sophistication, presenting a century-long challenge for programmers. This adaptability and scope for enhancement is a strength, as it paves the way for ceaseless improvement.

The Clinton Administration tried to dismantle the military

Reasons to agree:

1. Clinton decreased military personnel by 500,000.


2. Clinton decreased military spending by about $50 billion a year.


3. Under Clinton the U.S. Army lost four active divisions.


4. Under Clinton the U.S. Army lost two reserve divisions.


5. Under Clinton the U.S. Navy lost almost 80 ships.


6. Under Clinton the U.S. Air Force saw its active personnel decrease by 30 percent.


7. Under Clinton the Marines' personnel dropped by 22,000.


8. We need more troops than we have in order to win a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is about the size of Military that we should have. Weather Bush 1, Clinton, or Bush 2 were right or wrong in their actions in Iraq, we need to have the capacity to win the war that Bush 2 tried to fight. It was wrong for the Clinton administration to dismantle the military.

Reasons to disagree:

1.  

Interests

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. Making it look like Bill Clinton was a bad president, so that independents won't vote for democrats in the future.

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Making it look like Bill Clinton was good president, so that independents will vote for democrats in the future.

Books That agree

1. Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security, By Robert Patterson


2. Reckless Disregard: By Robert Patterson


3. Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years; By Richard Lowry


4. High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton; By Ann Coulter


5. Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash; By Edward Timperlake, William C. Triplett, William Triplett, II

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 8

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

Books that agree: 5

Total Idea Score: 13

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

We should decouple health insurance from employment

Reasons to agree:

1. You shouldn't loose your health insurance just because you loose your job.


2. There is no logical reason to provide health insurance through your employer. It was just done as a loophole to get around rules during WWII that stooped increases in salary.  


3. Healthcare as an employment benefit keeps you from comparing apples to apples when you compare jobs. Some companies don't make you pay very much for health insurance. Other make you pay a lot.


4. Health insurance as an employment benefit keeps people from going into different jobs because they are afraid of loosing insurance. 


5. When healthcare is connected to employment, employers only want to employ young healthy employees, because they end up footing the bill of the health insurance. If you had insurance as an individual, and tax incentives were restructured so it was just as cheap to get it as an individual, you would already have your insurance, and their would be one less reason to not hire an older individual. 


6. It encourages employers to push their married employees onto their spouse's heal insurance. 


7. Workers in low paying jobs have no health insurance. Workers in high paying jobs of super expensive health insurance. So most of the pre-tax benefit goes to the wealthy. This could be restructured in a way so that instead of benefiting people proportionally to how expensive the insurance is, and tying it to your income, the insurance benefit could come to individuals separate from their employer. 

Reasons to disagree:

1.  

Interests

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. 
   

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. 
   

Common Interest

1. 
   

Opposing Interest

1. 
   


2. 
   

Images That agree:

1.   

Images That disagree:

1. 
   

Videos That agree

1.  

Videos That disagree

1.  

Website that agree

1. http://www.olywip.org/site/page/article/2005/12/11.html
   

Websites that disagree

1.  

Related arguments:

1.  

People that agree:

1. Robert B. Reich

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change