I speak, therefore I’m right” – Part 2 the allure of ‘groupthink’

Last time out in Part 1, I talked about the trap of relying on intuition and “common sense” instead of critical thinking. By coincidence, the very next day I watched a video by Sabine Hossenfelder — a theoretical physicist with a sharp eye for nonsense — discussing misinformation on YouTube.

She made a point that surprised me. She wasn’t just criticising creators who peddle misleading content. She was more concerned about the people who want misinformation. As she put it:

“The problem isn’t the few people who produce this content, it’s the many who watch it… They want misinformation — consciously or subconsciously — to justify conclusions they hold dear.”

And she’s right. We click on content we agree with because it’s mentally easier. It feels good. It fits our worldview. And it saves us the effort of thinking critically.

Understanding Groupthink

This is where Groupthink creeps in — the tendency to adopt the beliefs of the group around us, even when those beliefs are wrong.

Groupthink occurs when individuals conform to the views of their peers.

Groupthink can come about because individually we’re lazy – it’s easier to listen to someone else telling us what’s right, rather than critically assessing the topic, because that means we have to seek out the information needed to formulate our own, better-informed point-of-view.

Some years ago I covered an article in a US riding magazine that claimed to have asked all their editors, riders with years of experience, whether “standing up on the pegs lowers the centre of gravity of the motorcycle”. They ALL claimed to have carefully considered the problem and then agreed. They were ALL wrong as any physics teacher will tell you. I even wrote a comment explaining why they were all wrong, by using a simple diagram, and it was never published. ‘Stand up to lower the bike’s CoG’ is STILL a common Groupthink myth.

What’s worse is that we may indulge in Groupthink even when we hold dissenting opinions in order to be a better fit in a social group which objects to having its Groupthink challenged. We can see Groupthink operating when a group prioritises conformity over critical evaluation of ideas; “we’ve always done it this way” is an expression of Groupthink suppressing an objection. Group members who continually express dissenting opinions may find their voices suppressed. Either they leave the group so their voice no longer troubles the group, or they avoid speaking out and offering their own differing perspectives in order to maintain group cohesion.

We can see Groupthink operating every time a SMIDSY crash video is put up. Having done my own research, I’ve documented the visual perception issues behind the ‘Looked But Failed To See’ crash in the ‘Science Of Being Seen’ (SOBS) project, and documented the fact that incidents where a driver genuinely ‘did not look’ at a junction and caused a collision are rare. Yet, as soon as the video appears, there will be a long sequence of responses claiming “the driver didn’t look”. Or must have been “on the phone”. Or “was distracted”.

Without a crash study, those are speculative statements, powered by Groupthink. It’s what our peers tell us “what must have happened”. The facts — as gleaned from scientific investigations into how road users behave at junctions – show that it’s far more likely the driver:

• • ‘looked but COULD NOT see’ thanks to Vision Blockers.
  • ‘looked but FAILED to see’ thanks to visual perception issues.
  • ‘looked, saw but MISJUDGED speed and distance’ thanks to the cognitive difficulties of determining the ‘time to arrival’ of small objects like motorcycles.

As I’ve shown in SOBS, “didn’t look” or “distracted” are rare events, alongside  causative factors such as “medical emergencies” which we’d probably not consider. Together they account for just one in ten collisions at junctions.

Even spending a few moments using some critical thinking would show us that if drivers really ‘didn’t look’ they’d rarely get past the first intersection where they encounter other vehicles! There’s no property that makes other vehicles somehow magically visible to drivers who aren’t looking.

But every time we see a newspaper report that says a crash was caused by a “driver not looking properly” or police claim theirs statistics show most collisions result from “poor observation”, it’s reinforcement for our built-in tendency to look for information that aligns with our existing beliefs.

So what can we do?

The short answer is “ask questions”.

1. Cultivate intellectual curiosity.

2. Pause before accepting a claim.

Ask yourself:

• • Is this a proven fact?
  • Is it an opinion backed by reasoning?
  • Or is it just a hunch dressed up as expertise?

The moment someone says “we all know…”, treat it as a warning sign. And be especially wary of influencers — including those in motorcycling — who treat facts, data, and science as optional extras rather than foundations.

This doesn’t mean you should stop exploring new ideas. It means you should evaluate them, especially when you find yourself nodding along.

And yes — that includes this article.

Next time: we’ll look at how influencers misuse data, why misleading statistics are so persuasive, and how to spot when you’re being led astray.