An early example of groupthink ? You could be forgiven for thinking that Plato is here not only describing groupthink, where individuals tend to want to agree with the group because they're part of a group, but supporting it. In context, it's more subtle than that. He's actually suggesting something profoundly, deceptively tautologous - which sounds crazy, but such is the way of Plato.
What he's saying is that people who agree with each other... agree with each other ! That is, when people disagree, it isn't because they think the other person is correct, it's that they think they're wrong... that in that one, specific instant, they think the other person is less intelligent than they are (or is simply mistaken for some other reason). After all, if you thought that both their reasoning and their information was perfect, you could never disagree with them.
So intelligent, knowledgeable people can and do try to outdo each other because they believe the others are mistaken in some specific regard; merely respecting the overall knowledge and intelligence of others in a similar field does not automatically lead to groupthink at all. Indeed, however flawed the academic system is, its system of competitive collaborations is very good at preventing this. It's perfectly possible to agree and disagree with people on different issues. You don't have to think that someone who believes a single different thing to you is inherently and unconditionally stupid.
Yet the wilfully ignorant insist on believing some absurd absolute version of this : we're all desperately trying to agree with each other while simultaneously dismissing external ideas as crackpottery; that we can attack external ideas but not the group's own. Nothing could be further from the truth - the reason a scientific consensus emerges at all is because it's endured a damn good mauling. If your idea can't stand up to that, then you're asking for double standards. And that's not going to happen.
Which is why if you're reading Plato expecting simple, unquestionable conclusions, you're doing it really wrong.
Plato's point here is that knowledgeable people don't try to beat others merely for the sake of trying to appear more knowledgeable, or trying to impress others by having different opinions for their own sake - just to be different. When someone says something that is a good and valid point, you can acknowledge that instead of being jealous they said it and not you. If you are jealous, you may try to reframe them making them appear in a poor light so that you can outdo them and be perceived as the brightest person in the room. Plato is saying that ignorant people tend to always do that. He is saying knowledgeable people allow everyone build their self confidence. Bad people try to break others, undermining their self confidence. This is leadership advice. Plato is right.
ReplyDelete