The Power of Dissent: 7 Decision Thinking Lessons for Psychologists | Book Review

Dec 25, 2020

In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business

For more good articles, welcome to follow【 SeiferTalks personal opinion 】

The Power of Dissent: 7 Decision Thinking Lessons for Psychologists, the original book is " In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business " by Charlan Nemeth, translated by Wang Yizhen. Published by Vision World Culture in March 2019.

I rate this book highly and recommend it because of the same writing style as The High Performing Mind (a large number of first- and second-hand scientific experiments and their conclusions, complete with a list of references).

The translation of the original text, Dissent, as "dissent" in this book is appropriate, except that the word Dissent means "disagree" or "dissent" (especially when it comes to formal proposals, plans, or general opinions. In addition to putting forward opinions or positions that are different from the majority), a large number of psychological experiments cited by the author in the book are mostly conducted in the context of visual level and face-to-face dialogue, so the translation of "see" is necessary and sufficient. .

Charlan Nemeth is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, specializing in "organizational behavior" and "the relationship between conflict and creativity" for more than 30 years. Based on the title of the book and the conjecture of the scholar's director, it may be easy to think that this is a book that discusses or teaches "how to seek consensus in the presence of different opinions", but this is not the case. As in the book "Common Sense and General Knowledge" by A Cheng, a great master in Chinese art and literature, it says: What is more important than common sense is the attitude toward common sense; what is more important than science is the spirit of science; the core and gist of this book is not to guide a single The clear road to get co-workers is to argue loud and clear: What is more important than different opinions is "the attitude towards different opinions (that is, 'dissent')." In addition, the book also proves through a large number of experiments that dissent, even if it is wrong, must persist to the end, and can still make an important contribution to group decision-making.

In addition to a large number of experiments and cited papers, the book is mainly run through "one movie" and "three major historical events", which are: "12 Angry Men" , " United Airlines 173 " Airplane crash ” (crash), the United States’ “ Bay of Pigs Invasion” (failure), and the “ U.S.-Soviet-Cuba crisis ” (resolved). These four examples continue to appear throughout the book, sometimes as citations and sometimes as subjects of analysis. In particular, the Bay of Pigs incident, although it has been nearly 60 years, is still widely studied and reviewed by the military, academia, and even the business community.

Given that the nature of this book is not to teach people how to find consensus in various meetings or discussions and achieve the best interests of the group, this book is not suitable for readers such as managers who are looking for "leadership" - even if it does mention to the attitude of the leader or the person with the final decision authority, but not much. To be more specific: this book is for people involved in group decision-making and discussion (in modern society, almost everyone); if your identity has to be constantly involved in these activities, this book is a competent "wake-up bell". ". Reading it, in addition to seeing the blind spots of groupthink, you can also understand how "dissent" helps us and our group make better decisions, and how those "dissidents" or "majorities" affect us .

When democracy and voting systems (including things) are already close to a "natural" power, it is not difficult to find: from the United Nations to the small family, discussions, decisions, and even non-verbal or non-communicative exchanges between two or more people, They are all unavoidable in the daily life of modern people, but most of the time people do not realize it, even unconsciously, without knowing anything about it. The Power of Dissent is an excellent primer for readers interested in understanding the reasons and rationale behind these activities.

The following summarizes the essentials of the whole book, which can be divided into three parts:

1. Majority opinions can easily lead to the herd effect, and even almost blindly follow

(1) The phenomenon of conformity is almost natural; experiments have the same results across countries and races

Psychologist Solomon Asch's experiments in 1951 (Wikipedia said the experiment was conducted in 1956, as Asch conformity experiments ), almost made an important annotation for the so-called "conformity". The experiment consists of groups of 7 to 9 people, only one person in each group is the subject, and the others are acting. When people were asked to "individually" pick which line segment was longer, they had no trouble picking the correct answer. But when it comes to "group answering" (where the test subjects appear together and point out their strengths and weaknesses in front of others), 37% of people initially make the wrong judgments of the majority (that is, the performers). The same experiment was repeated in countries such as Fiji, the Netherlands, Japan or Canada with the same results.

This is not the case only in academic halls; simply think about it: when people around us agree on the same thing, we assume they are right. For example: when we see everyone in the same line to checkout, we tend to go to the end of the line (often without first asking if the line is in line to checkout); another example: when people are in the same room People are laughing, and we tend to laugh along too.

Another finding was:

When the task is more difficult or less clear, more people will follow blindly, and those who have low self-esteem and are attracted to the group will have a particularly high proportion of blind obedience.

"Difficulty" and "uncertainty" are the two main reasons for people's "herd behavior": first, we often automatically assume that what most people know is the truth; second, we want to have a sense of belonging. If they are different, they may be ridiculed or punished.

The author adds here the analysis in economics:

... John Maynard Keynes described it as a "reputational calculation" by investors. …the average reputational risk of contrarian operations is higher than the average financial risk. If your investment is not like the crowd, it will lose credibility whether it succeeds or fails.

(2) Even if there is no authoritative leadership or interaction, just knowing the opinions of the majority is enough to bias the "information collection" before decision-making:

Decisions are usually based on the information obtained. Once they begin to follow the majority position, people are more likely to actively seek information that reinforces the position they follow. The most extreme situation is like the Jonestown incident (in which 908 people died in Jonestown, and they all committed suicide by poisoning). This "herd" situation can lead to strong shared beliefs, or a lack of reflection on the shortcomings of the group itself.

Even from the least extreme cases or experiments: when the majority of people support some proposition, the subjects will want to try to find data that can explain and affirm the majority's opinion. A minority, however, supported the motion that when dissent arose, people searched for very different information. They will begin to pay attention to evidence and literature that differ from the majority view.

(3) Brainstorming's long-standing rule of "don't criticize" is wrong :

In a 2000 study by author Charlan Nemeth on the importance of "brainstorming rules", "criticism and debate reduce idea generation" ( Wikipedia definition : During brainstorming, criticism of new ideas should be put aside for the time being. Instead, participants focus their efforts on coming up with ideas, extending ideas, and leaving critiques for later critiques. If comments are suppressed, participants will be free to propose unusual ideas.) This provision challenges.

After experimenting, it was found that:

...allowing debate and criticism to generate more, not less, ideas than the control group, and to encourage debate and criticism. The former generated more ideas than telling the group to "don't criticize," the same result in both the U.S. and France. . . A second benefit of dissent is that it stimulates divergent thinking .

2. Dissent can make group members think more and more comprehensively:

(1) Even if the asserted dissent is wrong, it still has a positive impact on group decision-making:

Even if the dissident is incorrect and is not your "fellow" in the group or what the author calls an "ally", as long as it is different from the majority, this alone is of great value because the dissident breaks the monopoly of the majority. Even if it's wrong, disagrees with you, isn't an ally, but at least the group consensus is challenged. In such a situation, it is better to see, understand what is right, and express it. The benefits are:

…when we are exposed to dissent, we become more open, curious, willing to consider multiple viewpoints, and even more true to our own ideas.

Dissidents, however, have to hold their own to be influential. To stimulate curiosity and divergent thinking, not only express opposition, but more than once, but also consistently and consistently.

(2) As long as one person raises a dissent and sticks to it, it can improve the quality of the group's decision-making process and results:

As stated earlier: Majority views drive people to conform and thus "narrowly focus on the majority view," which may be singular or poor in options. the author thinks:

Narrow focus is a liability that leads to bad decisions because we limit the information we search for and the options we consider. …We stop thinking about the complexities of the situation or seriously considering alternatives to the majority. ...when no one challenges the judgment of the majority, people tend not to look at other solutions. ….Narrow focus reduces the quality of our decision-making and problem-solving.

The book quotes Janis Irving L. Janis in his book Victims of Groupthink :

... Prerequisites for "forcing consensus" include group cohesion, leaders who love to command, high levels of pressure, and the group feeling that its own solution is unlikely to be better than the leader's preferred solution. Afterwards, various symptoms of groupthink emerge, such as stereotyping of outside groups, the illusion that one is invulnerable, self-censorship, the illusion of unanimity, and pressure on dissidents. Perhaps most importantly, these symptoms lead to the causes of bad decisions: insufficient investigation of alternatives and alternative goals, insufficient information search, selection bias, and failure to recognize the risks of preferred alternatives.

Conversely, the presence of dissidents can lead to "multiple approaches" (or examination of diverse thinking content) to solve problems.

...it doesn't ensure that you'll find the right solution, but doing so greatly increases the odds of finding the right solution compared to taking a single approach.

(3) Compromising at the last minute is the best strategy for dissidents:

In the book, the authors hypothesize that prior to an experiment, dissidents have what they call a "sweet spot"; that is, they don't change their position (at most, they make concessions) and can influence the decisions of the majority. Then through experiments, it was proved that the situation of "compromising later" had the greatest effect - the attitudes of others both publicly and privately changed.

When a dissident compromises at the last minute, he does two things—he shows persistence, and he strikes a flexible agreement at the same time. He didn't change his stance, just made concessions. In the end, he successfully achieved two results, which can be called "sweet spots".

3. Dissent is the truth:

(1) The technique of "devil's advocate" has a long history, but it has no practical value:

"Devil's Advocate" was originally a method used by the Holy See in the Middle Ages for whether or not a venerable believer or cleric could be canonized. It was an attempt to ensure that people were not only considering the role of a "dissident" in a highly coherent group by assigning someone to role-play The favorable factors should also take into account the unfavorable factors. In other words, the task of the Devil's Advocate is to constantly raise objections and remind those who want to consecrate the target to think about whether this is really possible? (Did he live without blasphemy or lack of faith?) This technique was originally intended to "inspire some form of divergent thinking" or "encourage groups to 'assess risks and benefits with equal zeal'" but this book Immediate opinion: " When the dissenter is a fake, it won't work, it will even be counterproductive ." Those who faced the devil's spokesmen seemed more certain that they were right. Conversely, sincere dissent allows one to reconcile the strengths and weaknesses of a position.

We found that role-playing failed to demonstrate the courage and conviction of sincere dissidents. When a person is role-playing, you can't tell if what he's saying is true or false, ... and again we see the importance of honestly expressing dissent.

Therefore, the author emphasizes again and again:

For dissent to be beneficial, authenticity is key.

(2) The best strategy for dissidents is to truly believe in yourself, and to be steadfast:

A more effective way to stimulate curiosity and divergent thinking is to not only express your objection, but to express it more than once, and to stick to it consistently. Through literature review, it is found that for dissent to be effective, "a necessary (but not sufficient) condition" is:

Dissidents must stand their ground. Those who disagree cannot raise the white flag of surrender, nor shake their faith. . . . Repeated but persistent mistakes are more persuasive than partly wrong and partly right .

(3) Real dissent can avoid the phenomenon of "group extremism":

The "truth" here is not in the objective sense, but the dissident "who truly believes that the dissent is true".

By reviewing the results of hundreds of studies, Charlan Nemeth found that when a group of people basically agreed on a decision direction, after the discussion, they became more extreme and more confident . This can be in the form of racial discrimination, convictions or innocence, or pre-conferences like the "Bay of Pigs incident" in this book, among many others. Scholars call this "Group Polarization".

When people reveal their preferred direction in a particular direction and discuss it with others, their tendencies become more extreme or intensified. … Hundreds of studies have proven that when a group of people basically agree on a decision direction, after discussion, they become more extreme and more confident.

As a book review, it is an obligation to present ideas that readers can reflect on. Here are my clarifications and comments on the three missing parts of the book:

First, the lack of in-depth introduction to the psychological causes of conformity:

Although "The Power of Dissent" is not as long as "Highly Effective Mind", in addition to presenting a large number of first-hand data and conclusions of experiments conducted by the author himself, it can also be cited extensively, making this book very convincing. However, when "dissent is better" throughout the book, the psychological explanation of "conformity" (whether cognitive psychology or evolutionary psychology) is lackluster.

As far as my personal background knowledge is concerned: Human conformity is likely due to two reasons: First, if you don’t conform—for example, if you see people running in a panic and don’t ask for a reason—then you’re likely to risk your life. . This is from the point of view of "evolutionary psychology".

Especially in prehistoric times, before there was no spoken language or writing, if you encountered an attack by a beast during the hunt, when your companions stopped or even fled back, stayed in place or continued to attack, and you might die. Therefore, conformity is quite likely a product of evolution.

Second, herd behavior is a "strategy of least resistance" : the "principle of least resistance" is universally applicable in physics, and it also applies to human behavior. This is from the perspective of cognitive psychology.

Most people always choose the way or method that saves the most time and effort away from the goal (but it should not be regarded as "sleep and dislike"); when the group is making discussions and decisions, once the time cost of reaching a consensus is found , the mental pressure exceeds expectations, then following the opinions of the majority, completing the vote or conclusion as soon as possible is undoubtedly the least resistance in achieving the goal. Therefore, people usually prefer an attitude of "everyone likes it" because this attitude or practice can (at least for the moment) minimize the consumption of time and energy.

2. The pros and cons of "dissent" are different in weightlifting:

Readers can take advantage of a great deal of "dissent" from this book, and perhaps find some solace in their sometimes (or always) misfits. However, everything has pros and cons. When people understand and are willing to try a lot to show different opinions, the next thing they need to know is what is the disadvantage of "dissent"?

Throughout the book, whether it is the author's first-hand research, cited academic literature or historical cases, they try to prove the merits of "dissent". But are there any flaws in the "timing of appearance", "length of duration", and "limits of tolerance" of dissent? For example: if a critically ill patient is in urgent need of rescue, should the medical team also be deadlocked and hesitant over a certain "dissent", and put "valuing multiple opinions" before life and death? Or, if the "dissent" is really wrong or even absurd, is it really necessary to constantly try to persuade and communicate in team discussions, just because the dissent can awaken people's awareness of independent thinking or attention to details?

In short: how much team resources should we best allocate to "dissent"?

3. The sources of the experimental evidences cited in the book cannot be included in this article:

This book contains dozens of relevant psychological experiments, which can be described as brilliant. The fly in the ointment is that the sentence paragraphs quoted in each reference are not "marked" and written as footnotes on the side (or below) of the page. Even if the back of the book is full of 23 pages and a total of 123 documents and experimental reports, it is still necessary for readers to repeatedly check before and after to confirm. Although this point does not hide its shortcomings, it is far from satisfactory in terms of reader experience (especially for people like me who like to repeatedly confirm and criticize).

I highly recommend The Power of Dissent: 7 Decision Thinking Lessons for Psychologists , which is another well-founded psychology popular science book after The High-Performing Mind . Readers, however, still need to be aware of two things, first: the book lacks a negative assessment of "dissent" (and the studies or cases that do the damage). Second, this book is not an instructive book in the field of success or workplace entrepreneurship. Its core purpose is to "understand", to understand the process of group judgment.

How people make decisions and judgements, especially how others influence our judgments.

If readers want to add more information about the influence of "individuals" on each other's judgments and decisions, they can refer to Robert Cialdini's " Influence: The Six Weapons of Persuasion, Making People Unknowingly At the mercy " ( "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" ) and his "Pre- Suasion : A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade" .

That concludes my review of the book The Power of Dissent . May good books help you and I grow together.

For more good articles, welcome to follow【 SeiferTalks personal opinion 】

Book Information: