*Special thank you to Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Schiffman whose article “Psyched for Torah
– The Dangers of Groupthink” inspired this one.
In 1972, Dr. Irving Janis, a Yale psychologist wrote a pioneering
book called “Victims of Groupthink”. In
his book, Dr. Janis describes the concept of Groupthink: When likeminded people
gather to make a decision, and, due to the social pressures to conform, they
all gravitate to the same conclusion, without taking the time to fully analyze
all side of the issue.
Dr. Janis argues that it was groupthink which played a significant
role in many failed political policies, from the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of
Cuba to NASA’s Challenger and Columbia disasters.
As Janis himself writes:
“I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to
refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal
of alternative course of action.”
In other words, in an environment where individuals are afraid not
to conform to the group’s already pre-determined outcome, then the group will
never be able to hear alternative opinions or approaches that could help them
make a more-informed decision. And what
is so scary about it is that because the members of the group look around and
see that everyone agrees they feel even MORE confident that their decision is
correct.
In a paper entitled: “Groupthink and the Sanhedrin” Rabbi Dr.
Eliezer Schnall, a Professor of Psychology at Yeshiva University, and his
colleague Dr. Michael Greenberg argue that many of the halachos that regulate
the operation of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish High Court, serve specifically to counteract
the possibility of Groupthink.
After all, the Sanhedrin was a group of like-minded individuals
with similar backgrounds who were responsible for making life and death
decisions. Without the proper checks and
balances, groupthink was a real possibility.
Among the many proofs they bring in their article, a number of them
come from this morning’s parsha.
When offering guidance for how to make difficult decisions, the
Torah tells the Sanhedrin:
לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת וְלֹא תַעֲנֶה עַל רִב לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת:
“One should not follow the majority for the bad.”
Rabbeinu Bechayei writes that
this is a charge to individuals to be careful not to spend time in the wrong
crowd, even if they are the majority. Rashbam, however, argues that this
pasuk is talking to members of the Sanhedrin, and is telling them as
follows: Yes, in general we follow the
majority. However, if you are a judge on
the court and you believe the majority are making the wrong decision, “Lo
Tihiye Acharei Rabim L’Raos” don’t just follow along with the majority. Rather, speak up and make your opinion known!
אם הם דנים שלא כדין לפי דעתך, ואעפ”י שלא יאמינו לך כי אם
למרובים:
If they are making a decision which you think is incorrect, EVEN IF
YOU THINK THEY WON’T LISTEN TO YOU, but only to the majority, you still MUST
speak up!
The Gemara in Sanhedrin 17a states that if a Beis Din is
judging a capital case and they find that they line up 70-0 to find the
defendant guilty, he cannot be convicted.
Why? Because there is a concept in the halacha known as “Halanas
HaDin”, meaning that before any conviction, the members of the Sanhedrin are
required to “sleep on it”, to spend the night considering the decision and make
certain that the opinion they are advancing is, indeed, correct.
However, says the gemara, if all the members have argued the
defendant is guilty, there won’t be any judge considering the case in order to
argue on behalf of the defendant! If so,
the judgment cannot be finalized. It is only once we have heard ALL opinions and ALL sides that a
final verdict can be handed down.
And this same pasuk contains a second half as well:
וְלֹא תַעֲנֶה עַל רִב לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת:
Some, like the NETZIV and Seforno explain that this
pasuk is continuing to drive home to the judges that they should ALWAYS give
their opinion, even if it is AGAINST the majority. However, Rashi
explains that there is a drasha to be made here. The Pasuk writes the word RIV with a missing
YUD which could be read as RAV. And what
does the word RAV come to teach in this instance? Typically one should not speak up against
one’s Rav, as we know, a student is not allowed to pasken a halachic question
in front of his or her rebbe. However,
the pasuk here is coming to teach us that LO TAANE AL RAV, don’t force the
younger judges to speak up in front of their rebbeim. Rather, allow the younger, less-experienced judges
to speak up FIRST! This way their voices
can be heard, and they won’t feel intimidated by the elder statesman.
Yet another example of how the halacha strives to avoid groupthink
in the Sanhedrin.
And, in fact, if you study the dynamics of groupthink and how to
avoid it, one of the most important elements in decision-making is what is
called the “open leadership style”, where dissenting opinions are encouraged so
that leaders can make decisions based on all of the applicable information and
possibilities.
And while groupthink is particularly harmful in the area of
governmental policymaking, its effects can be felt in many other areas as well. All of us are vulnerable to the challenge of
groupthink within our social group and within our community. Certain expectations and assumptions about
how thinks “have to be” exist all around us, and our goal, like those of the
members of the Sanhedrin, should be to be willing to think for ourselves, to
ask ourselves if we are making decisions based on our personal values or simply
based on groupthink.