When I first joined Globalink, I did so because I believed it would be a valuable way for me and other tobacco control researchers and advocates to share critical research findings, discuss scientific and policy issues, and obtain thoughtful feedback on ideas to advance the tobacco control field.
What I discovered is that Globalink serves precisely the opposite functions. It is a mechanism for preventing critical discussion of research, science, and policy issues in tobacco control. It serves to stifle thoughtful discussion of ideas, suppresses dissenting opinions, and plays out as a forum for malicious individual attacks against researchers, advocates, or citizens who dare to go against the mainstream opinions within the tobacco control movement.
I found this out in an interesting way. We were having a discussion on Globalink about employer policies to refuse to hire smokers. While many of the advocates spoke out in favor of such policies, a small number opposed them. It was suggested that we take an informal vote in order to get a sense of how opinion split on the issue. I thought this was a fair idea and would have helped us to get a sense of where tobacco control advocates’ positions split on the issue.
However, a number of advocates argued vehemently against taking a vote, arguing that if information were made public showing that a significant number of tobacco control advocates opposed these policies, it would give ammunition to “our opponents.” This point of view carried the day and the vote was quashed.
This move not only prevented a vote and ensured that we would never know the extent of opposition workplace smoker bans, but it also sent a message to everyone on the list-serve that support of such bans is the “official” dogma of the movement and that anyone who dares express disagreement to such policies is viewed as the “opposition.” Thus, this move made a clear statement that expressing disagreement with the idea of refusing to hire smokers was essentially heresy and that by doing so, the dissenter would be cast out of the movement and be viewed and treated as the opposition.
This is but one example, but it demonstrates how groupthink operates on Globalink. For all I know, it Is very possible that the majority of Globalink members actually opposed the refusal to hire smokers. However, because it was made clear that expressing such an opinion would be viewed as heresy, very few were willing to speak out. This, in turn, created the false perception that almost everyone on Globalink supported such measures. In effect, groupthink makes it possible for a group of people who almost all oppose a particular measure to come to the conclusion that they uniformly support such a measure.
I was soon to found out the extent to which groupthink dominates Globalink. I submitted a comment in which I suggested that the strength of scientific evidence supporting the conclusion that smoking bans lead to a dramatic, immediate reduction in heart attacks was not as strong as being asserted by many anti-smoking groups. Instead of responses that took issue with my interpretation of the scientific evidence, I was met with a defamatory personal attack: an accusation that I am a “traitor” who has gone to the other side and who now takes tobacco industry money.
In addition to personal attacks, there were also calls for me to be removed from Globalink for having the gall to express disagreement with one of the most entrenched pieces of dogma in the movement: that all research demonstrating adverse effects of secondhand smoke or positive effects of bans must be correct.
While most people are deterred by these personal attacks and defamatory accusations, I remained undeterred, somehow withstanding getting pummeled by my own colleagues. I continued to express my opinions, which from time to time, differed with those of the mainstream. Eventually, the inevitable happened. Globalink and its members had enough of my willingness to express disagreement, and I was expelled from the list-serve.
During my time on Globalink, I witnessed vicious personal attacks against any and all opponents of tobacco control policies, including private citizens who had no affiliation with tobacco companies. It was a forum for mud-slinging against anyone who dares to disagree with “our” point-of-view on the issues.
One of the characteristics of groupthink is that by insulating the group from criticism or differing opinions, the scientific rigor and integrity of the group gradually dissipates. Without being subject to challenge, scientific arguments and evidence begin to fail. No reputable scientist insulates herself from criticism or challenge. In fact, it is by subjecting ourselves to constant challenge that scientists are able to ensure the quality of their work and the accuracy of their conclusions. The very best scientists actually try to knock down their own arguments and do not draw conclusions until they are able to address every reasonable alternative hypothesis.
This process is not possible with groupthink. And this is why groupthink destroys the scientific integrity and credibility of social movements.
The Rest of the Story
Social psychologist Irving Janis coined the term groupthink and listed eight characteristics:
"1. Illusion of invulnerability – Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.""2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions."
"3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions."
"4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary."
"5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views."
"6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed."
"7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous."
"8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions."
Each of these eight characteristics was present in Globalink (and is present more generally within the tobacco control movement). Below, I provide one example of each of these characteristics.
"1. Illusion of invulnerability – Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks."
I witnessed an illusion of invulnerability regarding the scientific evidence related to secondhand smoke and the effectiveness of smoking bans. There can be no scientific study reporting adverse effects of secondhand smoke that is weak or wrong. There can be no scientific study reporting benefits of smoking bans that is weak or wrong. Thus, anti-smoking groups are willing to take great risks with respect to the claims they are willing to make about the effects of brief secondhand smoke exposure and about the immediate cardiovascular benefits of smoking bans. The normal carefulness that would temper extreme claims largely does not operate when it comes to this aspect of the tobacco control movement.
"2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions."
The perfect example of this is policy regarding electronic cigarettes compared to Chantix. Anti-smoking groups have been unwilling to reconsider their assumptions regarding the role of harm reduction in tobacco control, even though electronic cigarettes are not manufactured by tobacco companies, contain no tobacco, and involve no combustion. Anti-smoking groups have also discounted warnings regarding the life-threatening effects of Chantix and thus find themselves in the absurd situation of calling for a ban on electronic cigarettes, which have killed no one, while promoting the continued availability of Chantix, which has been associated with more than 200 suicides. Anti-smoking groups are not willing to reconsider their basic assumptions.
"3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions."
Anti-smoking groups too often justify unethical behavior, personal attacks on others, or receipt of funding from corporations with conflicting interests by arguing that the cause is a good one, so these pitfalls are justified. A perfect example of this was the American Legacy Foundation's argument that its taking tobacco money to fund anti-smoking ads was acceptable because the cause was a good one, but that nobody else could take tobacco money because by doing so they were contributing to the public relations work of the evil tobacco companies.
"4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary."
Anyone who opposes tobacco control dogma is viewed as the enemy and is personally attacked. Globalink is loaded with these personal attacks on opponents. The opponents are viewed in a stereotypic way and factual evidence is not needed to support attacks on these individuals.
"5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views."
My expulsion from Globalink, as well as the efforts to directly suppress opposing viewpoints are perfect illustrations of this fifth characteristic of groupthink.
"6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed."
I cannot tell you how many times I would receive phone calls after one of my posts to Globalink thanking me and telling me how much the individual agreed with me and was grateful that I had the courage to express my dissenting opinion. However, very few of these advocates were willing to share their opinions publicly. Self-censorship is rampant in the tobacco control movement.
"7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous."
The effect of this self-censorship is an illusion of unanimity. Because dissent is discouraged or quelled and individuals do not feel free to disagree, an illusion of unanimity is created.
"8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions."
The actions of the Globalink leadership to expel me when my opinions threatened the group by being contradictory to its views demonstrate this characteristic in action.
No comments:
Post a Comment