There’s something that bothers me about Twitter. It’s the tendency to become lazy when it comes to ideas and arguments. Complex ideas are boiled down to 140 character headlines. Many people never read the articles linked to, they just make a decision about the content based on the pithy headline and retweet, giving the ideas more credit than it perhaps deserves.

You might think that there would be more written about Twitter and Groupthink, but then, when you consider the characteristics of Groupthink it is perhaps not so surprising.

On the surface, Twitter provides a wide variety of viewpoints created by a diverse pool of individuals, but think about how many people you follow who have a contrary view to your own.

Consider the following tests for Groupthink that Irving Janis developed in 1977. Does your experience of Twitter have any of the following ‘symptoms’?

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leaders from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

It’s not just Twitter that can become susceptible to this kind of behaviour. Think about your product development process or the governing body of your favourite sport. Is there diversity of thinking? Are you innovating in a vacuum?

There are remedies if you believe you are at risk of making poor decisions based on either your social media usage or an imbalance in the teams you work with.

Here are some actions you might want to consider.

1. Assign yourself the role of critical evaluator.
2. Routinely discuss ideas with a trusted associate and report back to ‘the group’ on the associate’s reactions.
3. Invite ‘outside’ experts to challenge views of ‘the group’.
4. Find an articulate and knowledgeable devil’s advocate to question assumptions.
5. Set aside time to consider alternative scenarios.

Also consider following a couple of people who might have a contrary view. You don’t have to agree with them, but opening your eyes to a different point of view might help you make more well informed decisions.