@RiotOpeli and Tommy Gnox: Groupthink. A calm discussion

So maybe the post I made yesterday was a little bit angry and dismissive. In light of that, how about I raise what I think is the most, devilishly accurate explanation of what's happening with the lore. What I ask is simply this, Riot: Don't dismiss this as not applicable to you. You are just as human as we are, and subject to the same human fallacies. I can't say with certainty that Groupthink is precisely the problem right now - I am fairly emotionally invested in this whole issue, after all. All I'm asking is to separate yourselves from your decisions as a department and think about this critically: is this what's happening? Does it at least bear resemblance? I think it does, and I don't think admitting to it or recognising its possibility cheapens your credibility as a writer. Again, perhaps I'm wrong. I'm open to that possibility. All I ask is that you stop thinking as a group of people and individually evaluate the possibility that I am correct, instead. Even if I'm not, perhaps it would be an exercise in understanding our (those who oppose the removal of summoners as canon) point of view. I, personally, don't mind the retconning of most of the lore - as long as a compromise is made and we as players are still given importance. The word I'm using here is **compromise**. May we please compromise? From Wikipedia: > Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an > irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. > > Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". > > Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.
Report as:
Offensive Spam Harassment Incorrect Board