Zobel said:

---

I think this majority of this board rejects YEC theory, but it's not verboten, I don't think. People just don't agree with it.

I would guess there's more evangelicals on this board than catholics (maybe) and definitely Orthodox (only 3 or 4 of us I think).

It seems like we're still collectively unable to distinguish between consensus and groupthink. How do you see the difference between those two things?

---

There is even an evangelical Catholic here

I agree completely, and the characteristics you suggest are what I've observed on F16. There's very little actual discussion. Most of the posts are what I call "aggressive agreement" and what you call "bumper sticker" analysis. I think binary thinking is also a hallmark of groupthink and that's probably my biggest gripe there.

I think the biggest tell for consensus is that "alliances" are topical and shifting.

Sin makes you stupid.

There have been numerous YEC threads here. But there's really not much to discuss besides "The Bible says X" and "Science says Y." Usually they are pages of that until we've repeated ourselves enough. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Unfortunately, due to lack of new things to say they usually devolve in ad hominems.

Quote:

---

Didn't you just answer your own question about F16 being groupthink? Your definition describes the majority of posts there, especially when replying to anyone dissenting from the majority view

---

Yes, of course I did. Not sure what your point is.

Quad Dog said:

---

There have been numerous YEC threads here. But there's really not much to discuss besides "The Bible says X" and "Science says Y." Usually they are pages of that until we've repeated ourselves enough. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Unfortunately, due to lack of new things to say they usually devolve in ad hominems.

---

I can't speak to the other YECs who may post here from time to time. However, although the Bible does form the basis of my belief system, my belief in YEC is not devoid of science. In fact, when I first started to suspect that YEC might have some validity, I traveled around the country to meet some of the leading YEC scientists that are credible scientists. Those scientists include:

Kurt Wise
Todd Wood
John Sanford
Art Chadwick
John Baumgardner
Mark Horstemeyer

I would think that even skeptics might have some curiosity about how such well credentialed, accomplished and published scientists could hold to YEC beliefs if those beliefs are patently false. By way of example, I am intensely curious on other issues as to how intelligent people can reach conclusions sometimes radically different than mine. I may never agree with them, but I like to see things from their perspective and understand how they reached their conclusions.

To the extent that this forum does not share that curiosity, it appears to be much like F16. On any topic with which F16 does not agree, a typical response would likely be similar to the one quoted above and the one posted by Sapper.

To avoid a thread derail, go ahead and start a YEC thread and see how it goes.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

It seems like we're still collectively unable to distinguish between consensus and groupthink. How do you see the difference between those two things?

---

There is a legitimate and very good question. Let me throw it back at you for a bit. What do you think makes F-16 groupthink rather than consensus?

Having just considered the question, I will readily admit that my answer is probably not complete. What comes immediately to mind as a distinction is the tone of the responses.Responses that are typical of groupthink tend to be dismissive, insulting, and contain only a bumper sticker level of analysis. Responses from a group consensus could still be respectful and thoughtful. Another distinction is that groupthink rarely is willing to concede or admit any problems in the group's position. Non-groupthink should be able to concede problems without necessarily surrendering their position. Groupthink tends to be blind, zealous advocacy, whereas non-groupthink tends to be more of a discussion.

It seems that the Internet does not lend itself well to collegial discussions. Rather, participants almost invariably end up being zealous advocates of their position which can come across as groupthink. In my experience, people are much more considerate of each other when discussing things face-to-face as compared to discussing things anonymously over the Internet.

---

Didn't you just answer your own question about F16 being groupthink? Your definition describes the majority of posts there, especially when replying to anyone dissenting from the majority view

---

Mirror mirror on the wall….

BluHorseShu said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

It seems like we're still collectively unable to distinguish between consensus and groupthink. How do you see the difference between those two things?

---

There is a legitimate and very good question. Let me throw it back at you for a bit. What do you think makes F-16 groupthink rather than consensus?

Having just considered the question, I will readily admit that my answer is probably not complete. What comes immediately to mind as a distinction is the tone of the responses.Responses that are typical of groupthink tend to be dismissive, insulting, and contain only a bumper sticker level of analysis. Responses from a group consensus could still be respectful and thoughtful. Another distinction is that groupthink rarely is willing to concede or admit any problems in the group's position. Non-groupthink should be able to concede problems without necessarily surrendering their position. Groupthink tends to be blind, zealous advocacy, whereas non-groupthink tends to be more of a discussion.

It seems that the Internet does not lend itself well to collegial discussions. Rather, participants almost invariably end up being zealous advocates of their position which can come across as groupthink. In my experience, people are much more considerate of each other when discussing things face-to-face as compared to discussing things anonymously over the Internet.

---

Didn't you just answer your own question about F16 being groupthink? Your definition describes the majority of posts there, especially when replying to anyone dissenting from the majority view

---

Mirror mirror on the wall….

---

…"who posts the most laughing emojis of all?"?

---

Your poetic creativity is rivalling your rhetorical ability.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Didn't you just answer your own question about F16 being groupthink? Your definition describes the majority of posts there, especially when replying to anyone dissenting from the majority view

---

Yes, of course I did. Not sure what your point is.

---

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I thought you posed the question "what makes you think F16 is group think and not consensus "

Does anyone else buy the
"Stupid is as stupid does" theory?

It was first propounded by a deep thinker, I'm sure.

Even as a fundie, I never understood the urge to view the biblical creation myth as if it were a scientific journal.

Zobel said:

---

I remember this in discussion with a friend. the concept of groupthink / stupidity and trapped priors seem relevant.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-basic-problem

---

That was a good read.

Zobel said:

---

You should dig into that study sometime. It's pretty bad.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real

---

The study or may may not be good, but the effect is certainly manifest in many technical hobbies. I see it in scuba diving daily, and organizations like PADI doing zero to hero instructor courses are making it even more obvious. It's not universally true, but certainly describes and maps the behavior of many in situations like that, especially in the disconnected world of online discussion.

The study referenced in the OP is pretty obvious in the same community.... read up ok the rise of "DIR" diving...

Zobel said:

---

I remember this in discussion with a friend. the concept of groupthink / stupidity and trapped priors seem relevant.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-basic-problem

---

Interesting article, especially the part where they showed that when starting with a bias "doing your own research" only makes the bias worse. I think we've all seen ample evidence of that recently. People that do their own research tend to start with small biases and many end up on the lunatic fringe before long.

I think he missed the biggest way to combat this though. He mentions psychedelics and gradual exposure, which might work. But the best thing for this is simple human relationships and compassion. You may have a trapped prior that all homeless people are either unstable mentally, drug addicts or both. If you start reading studies and articles, you'll likely confirm your own bias over time. However, if you learn the stories of a dozen homeless people, either personally or by their own accounts, then that can be bias-shattering. How many homophobes have you met that changed completely when their child came out? How many racists do you know that did a complete 180 when they suddenly have a mixed race grandchild?

I think that ties your article into both the rest of the thread and is a major reason why Christianity can be a bridge. Let's say you're a rabid partisan, but you attend church with a member of the opposite party. You see that they are trying to be good Christians and you have respect for them. Maybe you even become friends. It's going to be harder for you to lump all the opposite party into a big faceless mass of evil people when you know this one person in that group isn't. The problem is that people are segregating their internet, friendships, worship, work, and community by partisan ideology, and there's not a lot of places left where you get to interact with people with whom you disagree.

I can't say I was ever homophobic, but I was definitely transphobic. But like I noted in the other thread, I know about half a dozen trans young people that I care about deeply. I've also listened to some personal accounts and learned about the history of the trans movement. I've also inadvertantly come across a lot of material about gender in other cultures, and how many of them are not binary. All of this together has helped remove my bias on the issue. I still don't understand it, and I probably never will. But at least I feel like I can engage people on a human-human level about the topic.