Groupthink or Connoisseurs' Consensus?

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

I think that there is groupthink here. The result is that everybody goes out and buys a couple of knit ties. Some people like them, and the groupthink has helped move them forward and interest them in new things that broaden their "sartorial horizons" and other people hate them and put them on B&S. In that way, the groupthink is generally a positive. Clearly there are some things that are generally liked, but I imagine that is because they are harmonious.

Remember the pipe craze?

Originally Posted by dopey

Click to expand...

Remember the pipe craze?

That was right after the pink glasses phase. Those were the days.

Groupthink would be if someone proclaimed a certain brand of foie gras in Manton's kitchen to be the best and everyone else went along with it

There's def a groupthink on all forums, esp here, but it's usually exalting a brand/product that deserves it.

the annoying part is the groupthink that thinks ___ is bad, when it's safe to say most are exaggerating or don't have any personal experience with it, but like to parrot what someone else said, maybe because that person's opinion is held in high regard or something equally silly

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

I am not passing judgement either way (though you can guess what I think). I am just asking if his claim has any validity.

When the claim is deployed in order to counterbalance a deep-seated inferiority complex without any awareness by the claimant that, in his nitpicking, narrow-minded obsession, he is the very thing that he decries, what do you think?

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Click to expand...

When the claim is deployed in order to counterbalance a deep-seated inferiority complex without any awareness by the claimant that, in his nitpicking, narrow-minded obsession, he is the very thing that he decries, what do you think?

I think a lot of members are genuinely into ugly ornate pocket squares. If only groupthink could be blamed. To be honest, I feel MC does expose one to clothing and shoes considered to be the epitome of particular styles and so forth. What you do with that is entirely up to you. Some give in to their mancrushes and blindly emulate their idol (he who is the object of one or several mancrushes, can I get credit for coining that?), while others take the time and investigate the claims for themselves and sometimes end up adding to the existing consensus down the line...

For me, an example of groupthink is 8 office drones having to work together to form a single opinion on any given subject. In the context of MC, it'd be like a certain brand of foie gras that nobody's tasted, then all of a sudden everyone decides to either love or hate it.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

I am not passing judgement either way (though you can guess what I think). I am just asking if his claim has any validity.

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Click to expand...

When the claim is deployed in order to counterbalance a deep-seated inferiority complex without any awareness by the claimant that, in his nitpicking, narrow-minded obsession, he is the very thing that he decries, what do you think?

Wow. I never noticed you were e-enemies.

I think it has to do with whether someone has actually have quality experience or at least critically think about whatever the issue at hand. B/c such experience and thinking can contribute well to the forum and argument at hand.

EDIT: you can all agree, but still contribtue and add on why you agree. And I dont' think that's group think.

Originally Posted by dopey

Click to expand...

Wow. I never noticed you were e-enemies.

We are not. At least I think and hope we are not.

I think you misunderstood. I took zj's post to be about Cruiser. The wording was so geared to produce the right answer that I made a joke about his having "stacked" the deck. I hope he got the joke, or at least did not take it amiss.

Groupthink would indicate that the group was somehow influenced by a superior source to accept, with out indepedant thought, that such and such is a good thing.

Connoisseurs Consensus is an agreement among more or less equals that, after consideration, such and such is a good thing.

It all depends on how you came to your belief in such and such.



No amount of groupthink will every get me to like onions on pizza.

Originally Posted by dopey

Click to expand...

Wow. I never noticed you were e-enemies.

You misunderstood my response.

"Groupthink," in my understanding, occurs when a significant part of a given group simply wants to be in the majority, usually to preserve group cohesion. They sacrifice any duty of critical thinking on the part of the individul to the perceived greater good of belonging. I shut down my brain, believing wrongly that others in the group will stay alert and critical, and we all just end up doing what someone suggests, mostly because no one objects.

That would apply here if there were members for whom belonging to SF or being "an SF sort of person" mattered more than any disagreement they might have with what is said here by the louder voices. I have trouble seeing that happen much. While there are a limited number of these sort of fora, there is more than one. If AK or Andy or Cruiser are louder on AAAC, then there might be a certain group who will consent without understanding to their authority. There are others who will just stop posting and stop reading. Eventually, those who tend to think about things the way the louder voices on SF think, or those who are learning and who find the louder voices on SF to be more rational or more in tune with their own experience will become SF faithful.

I suppose that is a way of saying that the anonymity and distance created by the Internet makes me question the possibility of groupthink here. My guess is that it is more a freely chosen association of those who think alike rather than pressure from the group. One need not print here all that one thinks--though I think that some do! What I think about wearing knit ties with a Neopolitan jacket, whether you do it or I, you need never know. That would be different, I think, IRL.

I does occur to me that, in this case, those who have a real interest in being important persons in the SF/AAAC/FNB universe might be more prone to capitulating to the group than the greater numbers who just read and post occassionally. Thus, if there is an inside and an outside, an elite and a common man, it would be the inside elite who are given to groupthink and the outside commoner who are (at least more) objective. Now, what would Strauss say about that?

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Gather 10 or 100 foodies in a room. Chances are 90% or more of them -- probably close to all of them -- are going to love foie gras. Is that "groupthink"? Or is there something inherent in the subject matter that leads a refined palate in that direction?

Can't it be both?

Or are you trying to find the precise ratio (i.e., 2/3 of the 90% are just followers, and the rest capable of idependently arriving at a principled conclusion)? That would be a quite a task. And wouldn't the result vary depending on what is being judged (fois gras? silk? macaroni and cheese?), what attributes about it, and to what if anything it is being compared?

Everyone reacts viscerally to sensory input. Not everyone is patient/organized/diligent/sensitive enough to coherently describe his sensory experiences, and experienced/discerning enough that his independent judgment as to the relative merit of things is valuable. That's what "refined" means to me, which is probably why I don't believe art students when they say a big red square is important art. Robert Parker wasn't born with a refined palate. He was born with (though arguably no longer has) a fully functional tongue, and he was lucky enough to have had the time and means to devote most of his productive years to spitting into his glass.

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Click to expand...

You misunderstood my response.
too bad. I live for the drama. Edit: But what does it mean that I thought you were talking about manton? ruh-roh!

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Are there sartorial conventions/ratios/proportions/colors/patterns/shapes/textures/combinations, etc. that are somehow inherently more pleasing than others? Do the most sartorially inclined tend to gravitate toward those things?

I think so. A friend who is an architectural historian has a long spiel about how there is an unknowable quality about what is pleasing, but there is most certainly a set of quantifiable proportions that have proven to be pleasing to the masses for thousands of years. This is not to say that there are not other proportions that some (but nowhere near as many) also find pleasing.

I think if you were to show the average person a properly-fitted suit that conforms to the SF consensus ideals next to a fused, mass-market RTW that may or may not fit properly, I'm pretty confident that the vast majority would pick the SF example as being more pleasing. That person would probably have a hard time expressing why, though. I think the same result would obtain when presented with a plain black cap toe oxford - EG top drawer or G&G on the one hand and AE or the like on the other.

If your tastes are more on the edge and fall outside of these norms, fine - but to decry the phenomenon described above as "groupthink" is to lack the courage of your convictions.

For example - mad props to Socal and this new guy neofinitia on WAYWN and MC in general. They could give a f*** what the Manton hive-mind thinks, and they do their thing without bitching about what a bunch of sheep the rest of the MC crowd is.