-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
Key Words (Red: Words present in the reports. Orange: Not
present in report however important for us in discussing certain
concepts)
Deliberation: long and careful discussion
Group-think: groups of people which think exactly the same
Censorship: the prevention of expressing certain ideas or
feelings.
Authority: a person or a group of people who supposedly have a
lot of knowledge
Information Signals: the providing of other people with
information
Social Pressure: the attitude which the organisation imposes on
its members
Heuristics: he proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by
rules that are loosely de-fined.
Eureka Problem: a decision which is brand new to the group
Personal knowledge: knowledge that is held by an individual.
Shared knowledge: knowledge which is held by the group.
Knowledge Annexation: the ability to compile knowledge from
different areas
Opportunity Cost: the negative consequences of not making an
alternative decision.
1
4 Failures Of Deliberating Groups By Cass R. Sustein
Providing you with investing not interesting reviews.
Preface
We want to reduce the structural hierarchy in which the rich
always have the ability to gain the most information and the poor
must fight their way into getting hold of some of the information
which may allow them to improve their own communities and groups.
Hence, we will start with the definition and clarification of a few
terms. We will have a PAC or Purpose, Audiene and Context Audit
first so that the reader knows whether or not to invest his or her
time in our pamphlet. This pamphlet aims to select certain reports
by intellectuals and provide notes for these reports. A special
page or pages for good reports will be delegated for some important
quotes from these pamphlets.
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
PAC Audit
Purpose: To discuss the pros and cons of deliberation and the
reasons why deliberation occurs in groups. Outline the ways in
which deliberation within groups may increase the chances of
reasoning fallacies are a failure of the group to be successful in
achieving aims.
Audience: Upcoming groups, Groups which use deliberation, groups
which want to use deliberation.
Context: This is most likely to come in the Internal Conflict of
our organisation. It is of vital impor-tance to use the discussions
within the organisation to our advantage. Every deliberation or
discussion should be an attempt to move the organisation forward or
improve the organisation. A good delibera-tion should try to
exploit the knowledge which the members of the organisation have.
Through the study of this report, a person may realise ways in
which the deliberations they have initiated or were part of may
have not been able to take a full advantage over the members.
Notes:
The blue part are the notes. The orange part is the analysis.
The red parts are the titles of the analysis.
There is an assumption among most groups that deliberation or
long and careful discussions is the best method to improve the
quality of decisions. However, most groups arent able to live-up to
their fullest potential because they are unable to carefully
exploit all of the information which group mem-bers have.
4 main reasons for such failures:
1)Judging people on events before the deliberation
2)Cascade eects. The statements of predecessors are
repeated.
3)Group polarisation. Attitudes and the ideas of the
participants goes to opposite extremes.
4)Shared Information is prioritised over the personal knowledge
of participants.
2
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
Assumptions, truths and results
In most groups, the answer to all problems and conflicts seems
to be deliberation or in simple words getting together and just
talking it through.
Assumption: Deliberation allows for people to make better
judgements and decisions to be made.
Truth: Group members exert authority and pressure over each
other.
Result:Inferior decisions are made.
The author sites a writer by the name Irving Janis who coined a
think tank term, group-think. This term suggests that in a group it
may be expected that all of the members think in a similar
manner.
Assumption: In order to maintain stability within the group,
this means people are allowed to think whatever they want however
they should be encouraged not to present it provided that it doesnt
clash with any of the organisations theories and principles
Truth: Censorship occurs and the group becomes more of a
cult
Result: The group makes decisions which do not exploit all of
the information present.
In order to understand, the main reason why some groups fail to
utilise deliberations to their advan-tage while others are fully
capable of doing so. You should have a better understanding
especially so-cial psychology.
The author suggests that their are two main psychological
factors influencing the success or failure of deliberations within
the organisation.
a) Information Signals: Providing other people with relevant
information
b)Social Pressures: The attitude which the organisation provides
for its employees.
These two factors if played or manipulated with correctly can
lead the organisation to success as everyone within the
organisation is heard and everyones view is being considered upon
making a deci-sion. The decisions that are carried out are based on
the feedback that is present within the organisa-tion.
This may also be exploited when trying to disintegrate a rival
organisation. Changing or manipulating the social pressure of any
rival organisation may lead to the organisations own success. When
trying to take down a rival organisation spies may be sent to
manipulate the organisation. However, just the mere understanding
of the rival organisation and the exploiting of it may lead to the
failure of the rival organisation.
However, the lack of understanding and appreciation of these two
factors may lead the organisation to self-destruction. These
factors act as a double edged sword you can use them however you
want, ei-ther for your own success or that of your rivals. You may
use them self-destruction or the destruction of your rival
groups.
Frequent and unexpected splits within the party or organisation
are a sign that the organisation is not paying enough attention to
the information signals and social pressure.
3
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
In the dogma or terms of Azadidome. The first factor is similar
to our value of action knowledge an-nexation and the study of
social pressure may be similar or even equivalent to the
Environment tenet in our Science and Technology value of action.
Hence, our studies in those particular fields may allow us to take
advantage of Internal Conflicts. Due to this, we will be able to
exploit deliberations in a better way.
A lot of times groups fail to annex or compile the points which
each of their members have which is precisely the entire point of
having multiple people involved in a deliberation. A group which is
united and well-known however unable to make high-quality decisions
when it is required of them is worth-less.
The author suggests 3 principal reasons why groups are
successful during deliberation
a) The productivity of the collective is much better than the
most productive member of the group.
b) Knowledge annexation is a well-understood topic
c) Synergy: The concept which states 1+1=3. Basically, synergy
occurs when ideas are compiled in such a way that the final idea or
plan is much better than the original plan or ideas s which the
in-dividuals thought o separately. eg. If a group member
understands dialectical materialism. How-ever, another person finds
it confusing and doesnt really get the point of it. A synergy will
occur if the group members with a new method of teaching
dialectical materialism or split dialectical ma-terialism into
materialist dialectics and dialectical materialism.
Brief Description Role of Information Signals and Social
Pressure in the 3 reasons for suc-cess and 4 Reasons of Failure of
Deliberation
Why does this occur? Let us study the two factors of which we
stated earlier, information signals and social pressure.
Over here we are going to provide you with an analysis on why
information signals and social pressures used in a negative or
ineective way lead to the detriment of groups and if used in an
eective way lead to the success of groups.
Social Pressure 1 and Failure Reason 1
When the group members speak with each other and have dierent
views, they tend to argue and de-bate their views, with the
intention to maintain their beliefs. Due to this, they have
developed their own views in a dierent way. This increases
confidence. However, as stated in our manifesto they do not gain
anything new, in terms of productivity. Due to this, arrogance is
built within the organisation as there is a lot of confidence built
up within a particular person This may encourage them to exert more
social pressure on other individuals within the political party or
organisation. Hence, they may consider themselves superior to their
fellow members however this may not be true at all. An ar-rogant
person may over time become overtly aggressive. This built in
aggression may increase the chances of judging other people. An
arrogant or aggressive person may often tend to use past events in
order to highlight were another person has got wrong an use that as
fuel to increase his or her arro-gance instead of focusing the
issue at hand. Which is the first reason why deliberations often
fail.
4
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
Social Pressure 1 and Successful Reason 1
On the contrary, if the same exact social pressure is to your
advantage. Rules may be set in order to have deliberations under
certain conditions or after some time. For example, if you study
anthropolo-gy you will know that a lot of what you do and your
style of thinking is based on the environment of not you but your
ancestors were in. It is quite likely that back in the days in the
era when our ances-tors were either living in caves, deserts or
jungles, it was hard to get food and the members of a tribe may
have died if they didnt strive for hunting or getting more food.
Due to this, we get a general sense of accomplishment as we think
that we are successful as we have placed food in our mouths.
However, if our deliberation is supposed to be about say improving
yourself. A member who has just finished his lunch may have a
feeling that he is superior because he or she has eaten food and
may be flawless or concerned about finding flaws in other people.
This is one way in which sense perception even your own sense
perception ends up deceiving you. An organisation having this in
mind may cre-ate a rule which prohibits members to eat before a
deliberation or even make all members participate in a day of fast
to prevent the members from being involuntarily arrogant. This may
allow for all of the members participating within the deliberation
to be more productive. Hence, due to this, the group may be more
productive than the productivity of its most productive member
and
Information Signal 1 and Failure Reason 1
If a person has a higher degree of recognised education say a
Doctorate they will be taken more seri-ously compared a person with
a lower degree of recognised education say a High School Diploma.
Due to this, the person with a High School Diploma maybe less
likely to question the information provided by the person with a
higher degree of recognised education. In addition, this is likely
to de-crease the information signals. Hence, the group as a
collective has less information in order to make good decisions.
The group however may judge a person by the information signals
that they have. Due to this, they may be judged on based on their
previous experiences. If a person was an ex-convict. They may be
judged as a criminal who decided to join a grassroots organisation
for fun. This may lead to group polarisation and in the extreme
cases block out ex-convicts from joining in forums, which is
detrimental for the success of the organisation as ex-convicts
might have certain experiences which allows each deliberation to
improve, hence increase the success of the group.
Information Signal 1 and Successful Reason 1
Unlike the case stated above, a good deliberation will operate
on the phrase, Each one, teach one, by Huey P. Newton, which states
that every single person in the world regardless of political,
religious, ideological or psychological standpoint can teach us
something which we were earlier unaware o. If the group above was
to be more intelligent and more smart they will invest some more
time in dele-gating roles. In a deliberation, they will assign
roles to each individual which may rotate from time to time. Maybe
at times the ex-convict will be delegated as a initiator and will
be encouraged to pick up 6 dierent books for all of the group
members to read about the prison system, how to work out in an
urban area and an interesting article about how people of a certain
colour are more likely to be arrest-ed than another. An
intellectual may improve his lifestyle and even his style of
thinking by working out his biceps more or learning how to use
basketball as physical means of communication.
5
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
Using such a style of thinking we may be able to generate more
paragraphs and come up with solu-tions. This is an extensive topic
and you could just write an entire book on it. These ideas may be
ex-plored in short stories and plays which may allow individuals to
use their own imagination.
If Azadidome decides to create a manifesto or rule book for
deliberations the 2 psychological factors, 4 main reasons for
failure in deliberation and 3 reasons for success in deliberations
should be thor-oughly considered. Of course, in consideration, with
other works such as MSW(Maos Selected Works) and the manifestoes
and so on.
The author mentions that statistics may be a method to find out
which decisions my be made by groups. Looking at the citations I
think if a reader is interested in such a topic
Two Sources of Self-Silencing
a) Information Signals
Assume if we have a person called Marx. Say if Marx believes
that an X decision needs to be made. Imagine if all of the members
of his group think that X also needs to be made. Marx may not
pro-vide the reasons for why the decision X is best. Assume if his
reasons are A, B and C .The other members of the group might think
that X is true however for completely dierent reasons say F,G and
H. This is what happens in an organisation. The decision X will be
conducted mainly by Marx then the reasons A,B and C will be taken
into perspective. If decision X will be conducted by other people
within the organisation then then F, G and H may be taken into
consideration. In this case, the decision made will consider the
ideas of Marx and hence the end product may be like another
decision Y. This may be good or bad.
In a group if two people lets call them X and Z have a lot of
authority , then in order to gain more respect and power, members
of the group may intentionally gravitate towards the decision made
by X and Z. The information signals by them are generally seen to
be more powerful and have more weightage compared to other people.
In Marxist circles, say if Engels is quoted in a justification, the
judgement say Y may be considered to have a mass of A. If another
person say Fidel Castro said something which was better than what
Engels said, it may only receive a mass of A-, however if you got
rid of the titles and the credits. It will have a mass of A+.
There may be an assumption by a person lets call him Tom that
the information that he may pro-vide lets call it A will be useless
when considering decision B. However, if you phonetically spell
as-sume you get Ass-u-me which means that Tom may fail both himself
and his entire group due to information that is held back however
may be helpful to the entire group.
In deliberations, people usually try to avoid providing
limitations of their own conclusions. Howev-er, limitations may be
important while considering whether the X or Y conclusion which may
help the group decide in a better way
b) Social Pressure:
If the majority of the group members think of a particular
decision A. Other members who may be in the minority might not want
to speak out against decision A or suggest the limitations of
decision A or suggest decision B. This is because speaking out as a
loner is often dicult. A random person, lets call him Lenin may
feel threatened to speak out against decision A even though he may
have
6
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
serious issues say X, Y,Z which the group may have to consider
before conducing the decision A. If Lenin has previous knowledge
and has taken decision A or been in a group which has taken
decision A and failed, then Lenin may be leading his group to
failure and may do so involuntarily because of social pressure.
Even if the members of the organisation do not desire to do so.
People may tend to not speak against other people who seem
provide their own opinion in a more persuasive and confident
way.
To act more persuasive, people participating in a deliberation
dont provide their own doubts about the decision which they have
chosen.
Even if provided sucient evidence that a decision is likely to
be detrimental, members choose not to disclose that they prefer
another option or another decision.
Racial dierences, gender and other ethnic detail may prevent
people to provide their opinions and ideas as they thing that their
opinions have little prevalence. It is a proven fact that female
re-searchers are less likely to self-quote than males
researchers.
Failures on steroids
I realised somewhere through the middle of the reading that the
reasons which I listed above are rea-sons for failures within
deliberations. However, the author was taking about some other
factors. He had a more psychological or metaphysical approach and I
had a more logical approach this lead to some other interesting
points. Some of which I think are extensions of my earlier stated
failures achieved through a logical methodology. Personally, I
think these failures are important and should be considered
holistically in addition to my earlier stated failures. Hence, I
called them failures on steroids as they are reasons why people
fail however for people who are more serious about under-standing
failures and may want to adjust deliberations within their own
organisations or start new ones while considering the following
principles.
A: Amplification of cognitive factors
B: Cascade eect
C: Group polarisation
D: Over-weighting of common knowledge
7
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
Failures on steroids
1: Amplification of cognitive factors
These are type of failures associated with thinking processes.
Someone interested in studying this in detail might want to read On
Contradiction by Mao Tse Tung.
People often use Hereustics which allow them to arrive at facts
or opinions which are predictably false or weakly supported.
Types of Heuristics:
Availability Heuristic: When people use the term err in English
they are searching their brains for availability heuristic. An
availability heuristic is based on the knowledge with the person
has ex-amples of.
Media may be a big bias in this. For example, if people have
seen terrorist attacks on the media very often they may be likely
to think that such attacks are very common. This is also a common
reason for stereotypes and biases based on ethnicity, gender and
identity. A person may consider a terotrirst at-tack a very big
threat were as more common stu such as
Familiarity Heuristic: Someone may make a heuristic as they are
more familiar to it.
If a random person sees an Arab or Muslim person they are very
likely to think of Muslim extremist terrorist organisation as they
are used to them. However, Rumi or Ibn Al Hayhtam are not too
famil-iar hence referring or assuming that they may poetic or think
a lot about science may not be some-thing which comes to mind
immediately.
Salience Heuristic: Created due to shock.
A terrorist attack on television may be more salient or more
vivid to viewers compared to a report or book on terrorism. Hence,
they may remember something more or be more awed. When people saw
the video of extremists attacking two or 3 French Liberation
magazine members they were more shocked. However, when 50-80
Adivasi people were killed in the East side of India in a massacre
around the same date, most of them women and children, the world
didnt even give a fuck because there was no video-graphic evidence
of the massacre.
Sympathetic magical thinking: People may associate certain
objects with certain ideas and may connect it with certain
concepts.For example, a book with Arabic or Urdu writing may
frequently be associated with terrorism. A book with French writing
may be associated with being poetic. However, both of these may not
be the case.People may make multiple heuristic and reasoning
fallacies while making decisions while they are in a group. Due to
this, it is more likely that mistakes are increased dramatically in
groups of large num-bers.
Groups who associate their identity with the organisation may be
more likely to agree with the deci-sions of the organisation. This
is probably why an organisation continues on making a mistake. We
may want to start making deliberations more like reading clubs at
school to not only to maintain but
8
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
to increase the quality of the discussions in which each member
is delegated with a certain task. The reading clubs, Ive been in
basically delegate each member a certain role in a discussion, each
role is rotated.
Egocentric Bias: The bias which assumes that everyone in the
world thinks like you.
The author states it is important to have people to have a
variety of backgrounds and ethnicities. If you are discussing about
dialectical materialist, a group with people with a degree ranging
from Physics to Anthropology might do better than a group
practicing a certain subject. In addition, it is important to have
from dierent ethnicities as each person carries their own cultural
background. If you have people from dierent cultural backgrounds
you are less likely to think that everyone acts and thinks exactly
the way you do. Hence, you are more likely to be open-minded and
less stereotypical. In addition, each society even capitalistic
society fills us with dierent attitudes and personalities. By
having a varied ethnic or cultural group you are more likely to
find the flaws within your own personal-ity and add them.
Hindsight Bias: The assumption that you have some kind of
super-powers or extreme in-telligence skills of interpreting or
predicting the future.
Luckily one type of bias that is removed or eliminated is the
hindsight bias. Which is the assumption that a particular person
predicted an event say the starting of violence in Iraq. There is
likely to be a worship of idols or leaders in groups especially the
reading club styled deliberation that I mentioned earlier.
The author also notes that groups tend to work better Eureka
problems. Which are problems or decisions brand new to the
group.
Taking advice from this report. I think that when trying to
write-up or practice an activity which is already familiar with the
group or even an individual, you should try adding a new element
such as writing in a new format or a new style. This not only
reduces boredom but adds a new element of in-novation and prevents
arrogance from being much of a factor as no one has the upper hand
in terms of having the best experience with such a problem.
2: Cascades
Process by which influence one another. And try to apply social
pressure on each other to the point that the members refuse to
disclose their personal knowledge. And repeat shared knowledge.
A lot of times the same mistakes or same decisions may be
repeated and seen as policy
Informational Cascade: The Same information is passed from one
generation to another. Howev-er, such an information may or may not
be true.
Some information being passed from one generation may be
important or vital. It may be hard for individuals to correct what
their predecessors did wrong even though if they think that their
informa-tion is wrong. Rebelling individually is very hard and
requires a lots of guts. Not a lot of people have that though.
9
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
Reputational Cascade: People know or are aware of their personal
opinion and about some truths within the particular topic. However,
they dont disclose this out of fear of a decrease in reputation
among the members in their group.
Availability Cascades: We have assumed that people are in a
sense which is completely rational. If the media is able to
infiltrate your brain and make you feel traumatised. You may be
morning for someone who you dont even know and for no reason. This
may enter your deliberations and cause biases and be involved in
arguments within the group which is totally irrelevant
3: Group polarisation
When you are deliberating within a group, you are forced to
defend your views and your opinion, es-pecially if you are from
dierent cultures. Due to this, the group is more likely to go
extreme in its beliefs and ideologies. This is most likely because
in most of the world deliberations or discussions are meant to be a
mode for stress relief. In India we have a word "gap chaat. Which
basically means dis-cussions which are meant for no purpose and
around no central topic. In my opinion, this is the capi-talistic
attitude that proletarians or workers and semi-proliterians or
employees have been thought to have when amongst each other.
However, this is extremely detrimental for community economics or
community organisation. On the other, the leading capitalistic
family have developed the art of having more decision based
deliberations. In order to proceed, we must learn how to quit from
ideological deliberations and advance to more plan based or
decision based deliberations. Decision based deliber-ation at first
may seem more uncomfortable because we are not used to it. I
remember when me and Domekhan used to try to spark up decision or
plan based deliberations those discussion would usually be the most
hostile or uneasy or uncomfortable discussions however after the
decisions that are re-quired are taken then you are thankful for
the deliberation and though multiple minor victories and successes
one may be motivated to continue this future. I dont say that you
should never have ideo-logical or catching up deliberations however
their needs to be a balance between each type of deliber-ation.
Having a correct and optimised balance between each type of
deliberation may help people in not becoming too polarised in a
group. Hence, this prevent splits within the organisation which are
created from small ideological dierences.
The lack of recognition and study in groups about the two
factors of success within deliberations In-formation Signal and
Social pressure. Groups must set ground rules which force group
member even leaders to also follow the rules. Such rules should be
set in recognition of the 2 factors of success with-in the
deliberation working inside the 4 reasons for failure within
deliberations, 4 failures within de-liberations on steroids and the
3 categories of success within deliberations.
10
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
4: Over-weighting Common Knowledge
There are two types of knowledge that me and Domekhan learnt
through out school subject Theory of Knowledge. One is Personal
knowledge, which his knowledge that an individual personally has.
The other one is shared knowledge, which the knowledge which the
group as a collective has. What happens to us in a group, is when
there informational signal which contains shared knowledge. There
is an immediate recognition to that information signal. And this
may be important when inter-nal deliberations are occurring.
This is why it is important for groups need to evaluate what we
call in business terms opportunity cost. Or in psychology, Hidden
profits.
Cognitively central people are those people who practically
shared all their knowledge and infor-mation and don' have any more
in the tank for other people to provide at the time of the
delibera-tion. Cognitively peripheral people are those who have new
personal knowledge which they have recently collected about the
topic of deliberation. Groups respectfully value the information
which the cognitive central people have. However, carefully
exploiting the information of the cognitive pe-ripheral people
usually helps an organisation advance further than it would
have.
Further reading
Here are some sources which the author cited which we think will
be important and in-vesting to read.
1) Smart Groups by Harvad Business School2) Infotopia by Cass.
R.Substein3) Groupting 2nd Edition by Irving L. Janis4) Interaction
with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality:
Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive
Decision Making by Chip Heath and Rich Gon-zalez5) Social
Corroboration and Opinion Extremity by Robert Baron6) Proper
Analysis of the Accuracy of Group Judgments by Daniel Gigone and
Reid Hastie,7) Experimental Evidence of Group Accuracy,Reid Hastie
8) Information Pooling and Group Decision Making by Bernard
Grofman9) Comparing Micro and Macro Rationality, by Robert J.
MacCoun10) Judgments, Decisions, and Public Policy by Rajeev Gowda
and Jerey Fox11) Why Societies Need Dissent by Cass R. Sunstein12)
Inside the Jury by Reid Hastie13) Team Medical Decision Making by
Caryn Christenson and Ann Abbott14) Decision Making in Health Care
by Gretchen Chapman and Frank Sonnenberg15) On Contradiction by Mao
Tse Tung16) The Eect of Discussion upon the Correctness of Group
Decisions: When the Factor of Majority Influence Is Allowed For,by
12Robert L. Thorndike17) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of
Intuitive Judgment by Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel
Kahneman18) Availability: A Heuristic For Judging Frequency and
Probability, 5 Cognitive Psychology by Amos Tversky & Daniel
Kahneman19) The Perception of Risk by Paul Solvic20) Judgment under
Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases by Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic,
and
11
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
Amos Tversky21) Sympathetic Magical Thinking: The Contagion and
Similarity Heuristics by Paul Rozin and Carol Nemeroff22)
Heuristics and Biases by Gilovich, Griffin, and Kahneman23) Group
Consensus Approaches in Cognitive Bias Tasks by Mark F. Stasson24)
Bias in Judgment: Comparing Individuals and Groups by Norbert L.
Kerr25) Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes by
Janet A. Sniezek and Rebecca A. Henry26) Overconfidence and War by
Dominic Johnson27) Effects of Attorneys Arguments on Jurors Use of
Statistical Evidence by Edward L. Schumann and W. C. Thompson28)
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes by Glen
Whyte29) Investigation of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon in a
New Product Introduction Task by James W. Gentry and John C.
Mowen,30) Escalating Commitment by Whyte31) Group Consensus
Processes by Stasson32) We Knew It All Along: Hindsight Bias in
Groups by Dagmar Stahlberg33) The Blind Leading the Blind by David
Hirschleifer34) Why Societies Need Dissent by Sunstein35)
Information Cascades in the Laboratory by Lisa Anderson and Charles
Holt36) Information Cascades: Replication and an Extension to
Majority Rule and Conformity-Rewarding Institutions by Angela Hung
and Charles Holt37) Information Cascades in the Laboratory by Lisa
Anderson and Charles Holt38) Are More Informed Agents Able to
Shatter Information Cascades in the Lab?39) The Economics of
Networks: Interaction and Behaviours by Patrick Cohendet40) Are
More Informed Agents by Willinger and Ziegelmeyet41) Availability
Cascades and Risk Regulation by Timur Kuran and Cass R. Sunstein42)
Social Psychology: The Second Edition by Roger Brown43) The group
as a polarizer of attitudes by S. Moscovici and M. Zavalloni44) Are
Judges Political? An Empirical Investigation of the Federal
Judiciary by Cass R. Sunstein45) Deliberating about Dollars: The
Severity Shift by David Schkade46)Extremism and Social Learning by
Edward Glaeser and Cass R. Sunstein47)Hidden Profiles: A Brief
History, by Garold Stasser and William Titus48)"The Common
Knowledge Effect: Information Sharing and Group Judgments, by
Daniel Gigone and Reid Hastie49)The Impact of Computer-Mediated
Communication Systems on Biased Group Discussion, by Ross Hightower
and Lutfus Sayeed50)The Psychology of the Internet by Patricia
Wallace51)Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making:
Biased Information Sampling during Discussion by Garold Stasser and
William Titus52)Hidden Profiles, by Stasser and Titus
12
-
Azadidome NOTES_Issue 1 Peer-feedback and Criticism_Internal
Conflict
provided to you by
Azadidome
Bringing you the truth
You may use any part of the brochure provided you cite that it
comes from www.azadidome.com
13