incestuousamplification

Without knowing it, the Columbia investigators were identifying a pervasive social problem, one that unites these examples and that leads to many failures in the public and private sectors. In military circles, this process is called "incestuous amplification." Among psychologists, it is known as "group polarization."

In a nutshell: Like-minded people, talking only with one another, usually end up believing a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk.

Cass R. Sunstein, "The Power of Dissent," Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2003

"Incestuous amplification" = "A condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation"

(David Mulholland, "Scepticism mounts among defence and intelligence officials", Jane's Defence Weekly, 03/05/03)

When Dick Cheney set up a task force to inquiry into the market manipulation by Californian energy utilities he made sure he consulted only with energy executives. “So the task force was subject to what military types call “incestuous amplification,” defined by Jane’s defence weekly as “a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lockstep agreement, re-inforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation.” (Paul Krugman The Great Unraveling Penguin 2005 p234

Politicians of all colours are particularly good at setting up inquiries that guarantee the outcome they are looking for.

However, it is not just confined to the Cheneys of this world. It seems to be a feature of most organizations where we tend to select people on the basis that they share our views.

It would seem that societies dominated by an Anglo Celtic culture are particularly prone to this (see Hofstede Cultures and Organizations) it would seem that we find disagreements so unsettling that we would rather develop unacceptable compromises or avoid the disagreement altogether than work through the disagreement. In our culture it seems that to disagree is to declare that you are the enemy. It would seem that we need to learn to differentiate between the argument and the person advancing the argument otherwise we will be doomed to associating only with those who agree with us and hence get locked into incestuous amplification.