History as recent as the 20th century may have accorded us some tools to even conceptualise a theory based on irrationality in foreign policies. What have the countless wars waged in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and currently achieved?
What relationship if any exists between the minds of political leadership and the international political realm that ultimately had led to war after war, destruction after destruction, foreign policy irrationality after foreign policy irrationality with no clear victors or benefits for all.
What makes political leadership assumes military conflicts rather than cooperation &/ or peaceful coexistence would restore disequilibrium in the world order?
Yale University’s political scholar Irving L. Janis wrote:
Quote
“Groups can bring out the worst as well as the best in man. Nietzsche went so far as to say that madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups. A considerable amount of social science literature shows that in circumstances of extreme crisis, group contagion occasionally gives rise to collective panic, violent acts of scapegoating, and other forms of what could be called group madness. Much more frequent, however, are instances of mindless conformity and collective misjudgement of serious risks, which are collectively laughed off in a clubby atmosphere of relaxed conviviality.”
“What is groupthink?”
“I use the term “groupthink” as a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a collective ingroup, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. “Groupthink” is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell presents in his dismaying 1984 – a vocabulary with terms such as “doublethink” and “crimethink.” By putting groupthink with those Orwellian words, I realise that groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. The invidiousness is intentional. Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement that results from in-group pressures.”
Unquote
Leo 81
3 comments:
When the expected costs outweigh the expected benefits, states will not attempt to change the disequilibrium in the existing system.
However, when irrationality sets in, there exists significant risks in the miscalculation of foreign policies to inhibit the rise of another power.
Groupthink is a potential source of irrational miscalculated foreign policies which could end in catastrophic fiascos as repeatedly seen in history especially in more recent times since the 1950s. Many incremental steps which may appear relatively low risks &/ or with marginal benefits outweighing marginal costs maybe taken which could potentially lead to the ultimate unthinkable as events could spin out of control over time.
If you look at the number of infected visitors being let in daily, you know this thing is going to explode soon as the multiplier effect is many time higher than Delta. But the imbeciles did not bother, thinking all is fine.
Let them in, let them in, no problem at all.
In Singapore, the group-think is actually one man think and decide. The rest just obey what the aristocrat emperor had already decided, because it is unwise to argue with the dictator.
Post a Comment