Groupthink

[Thoughtful]

I just realized why I don't "do" groups.

For a group to move rapidly in any course of action (be it good or bad) requires a leader, and several people who agree to follow that leader. This requires each non-leader member to contribute an amount of "Blind Obedience". A good leader will listen to his group, but more often than not, group leaders are chosen based on their skill with influencing people, not their ability to be influenced by others.

The fastest moving groups have one open mind, and several closed minds.

As leaders are human, they will make mistakes. But when the leader leads his group into making mistakes, the mistake's effects will be magnified, as instead of one person making the mistake, you now have 3, or 8, or however many people are in the group making that mistake. Because I do not wish to be lead into mistakes, I remove myself from groups I perceive are preparing to make them; And because all groups make mistakes, I eventually remove myself from all of them.

The result is that I have neither the benefits nor disadvantages of working in groups. And I doubt this applies to only me.

Did I miss anything?

 

[flow]

hmmm, yes I see what you mean. In high school, I was apart of a nerdier group of people (speaking of your thread on how nerd types are drawn to the intp and vice versa).. we had an interesting dynamic. Looking back on it, essentially the group was lead by my INTJ friend. Everyone wanted to be his best friend, and wanted to hang out with him (his house was also our afterschool hang out place, we played a lot video games there and such.. they had nice TVs and ready supply of caffeinated beverages). However, in truth, I was his best friend. And so I quietly influenced his influences on the group. When I wanted our group to do something, I'd just tell him my idea and then he'd make it happen.. because they'd listen to him, and he'd listen to me. I could never really lead a group, I'm entirely too indifferent towards winning people over (although I am working on this).

Now in college, I joined a new group, a very diverse and to be honest, cool group of people. Aspiring musicians, actors, politicians/lawyers, smart kids who had good tastes. In this group there was constant jockeying for 'leadership', be it perceived or real, and my ENTJ friend would often claim that role. However, his personality while drunk was abrasive to say the least, and I think in truth I kept the group together in many ways by sticking by members who had lost popularity (during my freshman year in the infant stages of this group my best friend was an ENFP who was deemed 'not cool enough' by some of the other members (an ESFP in particular), and he attempted to weed my friend out of the group by not inviting him to things, however I was cool with the ESFP so he'd invite me, but I'd refuse to go unless my ENFP friend came with). Anyways my ENFP ended up being 'cooler' than the ESFP in the long run, as virtually all S types were slowly but surely weeded out of the group simply by not clicking with us as much as they once had..

I couldn't say I ever really lead the group, I always assumed a quiet role and simply listened to everyone and made it clear that I was doing so.. and I think because of this everyone really appreciated my presence and I in fact did help the group. This group certainly helped me as well. I wouldn't be the person I am today if not for these people, who are a constant influence on my thoughts, actions, behaviors, and beliefs.

And I've said too much. Anyways, being a part of a group often means deciding on your role.. as INTPs I'm sure generally we do not wish to lead and do not wish to follow, but I assure you, you can do neither and still be a part of a group.

 

[warryer]

Flow you've got it perfect. It cannot be stressed enough that your role in a group is based on you.

I can see what you are saying Thoughtful, if you want the group to fit your mold you have to go out and exert some influence. Yes even you are human and can fail.

Me being in college, I don't really see the point in putting any effort into making my place in a group that is going to be dismantled once we go our separate ways upon graduation. I need something more or less permanent because it takes a lot of effort for me to go out and get into one.

A benefit of groups are that you have a set of people that can attest to your character when you need them to. They will back you up when needed. Or simply a group of people to share 'the good times' with.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

And so I quietly influenced his influences on the group. When I wanted our group to do something, I'd just tell him my idea and then he'd make it happen.. because they'd listen to him, and he'd listen to me.

Very INTP, being the leader's confidant.

Personally though I'm somewhat schizoid, if need be I'll happily give assistance but I never ask for it and in the unlikely scenario that I get caught up in making a group discission I either participate as little as possible or tell everyone what discission they were going to make, I don't lead, I just cut out the bullshit.

...actually, is that leading?
If someone effectively has no opinion of their own and serves only to identify and highlight the group's will, are they leading or just metaphorically greasing the gears?

 

[Darby]

o, well at best, I go off in my own corner of the group, deal with whatever problem we were faced with, and then watch the rest of the group struggle and strain till either: A) they figure it out, or B) I freak out, finish it for them/tell them how to do it, so we can move on. I'm not sure why, but for most things people look to me as a leader in groups, and I often shove it off on someone else, because I know someone will get left behind and start complaining when they don't understand what it is we're supposed to be doing, dealing with that crap is someone elses job

 

[KazeCraven]

Very INTP, being the leader's confidant.

Personally though I'm somewhat schizoid, if need be I'll happily give assistance but I never ask for it and in the unlikely scenario that I get caught up in making a group discission I either participate as little as possible or tell everyone what discission they were going to make, I don't lead, I just cut out the bullshit.

...actually, is that leading?
If someone effectively has no opinion of their own and serves only to identify and highlight the group's will, are they leading or just metaphorically greasing the gears?

Leading? I'd say only if you're actually the one that finalizes the decision. You don't have to really have your own opinion as long as you're the one who directs the group in the end. It doesn't sound like you're doing that though.

 

[Da Blob]

I started a thread about Group Dynamics some time ago by just copying and pasting part of a paper i wrote for a Group Dynamics course in graduate school. The book "Paradox of Group Dynamics" is an interesting read (for just the first half of the book) I think I have a PDF of Chapter 4, "The Sources of Paradox in Group Dynamics" if any one is interested in pursuing the topic...

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=2350

BTW I address the issue of authority about 2/3 into the paper...

 

[Vrecknidj]

Have you read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer?

Dave

 

[Cavallier]

I've had similar background as Flow. I find that for a person to be able to lead they need to have that J ability to direct but in order for a person to be a good leader they need to have a good adviser. Someone who intuitively knows how the others will react. The ENTJ "leader" in my social group often confers with me before making a decision. He'll come up with ideas but before implementing them he runs them by me to see how everyone will react. Although, I don't tend to hang out with lots of people. My social groups are usually only made up of 4 or 5 people.

But, having said all that, I generally like to act independently and without a group.

 

[eudemonia]

Very insightful Flow - I enjoyed reading your post. For those who are interested you can map your MBTI onto Belbin's team roles using the Margerison McCann team wheel. I think INTPs come out as Plants and Monitor Evaluators - not sure though and have got to rush. This reinforces much of what has been said on this thread.

 

[Cogwulf]

I just realized why I don't "do" groups.

For a group to move rapidly in any course of action (be it good or bad) requires a leader, and several people who agree to follow that leader. This requires each non-leader member to contribute an amount of "Blind Obedience". A good leader will listen to his group, but more often than not, group leaders are chosen based on their skill with influencing people, not their ability to be influenced by others.

The fastest moving groups have one open mind, and several closed minds.

As leaders are human, they will make mistakes. But when the leader leads his group into making mistakes, the mistake's effects will be magnified, as instead of one person making the mistake, you now have 3, or 8, or however many people are in the group making that mistake. Because I do not wish to be lead into mistakes, I remove myself from groups I perceive are preparing to make them; And because all groups make mistakes, I eventually remove myself from all of them.

The result is that I have neither the benefits nor disadvantages of working in groups. And I doubt this applies to only me.

Did I miss anything?

This certainly fits in with the theory I've had about team work. I've always thought S types were best at team work, and it would make sense having an N type as the open mind to lead the group.
If S types could be described as convergent thinking, and N types as divergent thinking, a group of S types would function well as a group, but a group of N types would get distracted by their own thoughts easily and each want to work in different directions, a group of S types with one N would have the N setting the direction and the S' would automatically follow it.

Whether this actually works in real life is another matter though