The Perils of Reality Avoidance: How to Overcome Denial and Groupthink

Why every inner circle needs a dissenter in chief

Why do so many smart people miss obvious warning signals that are right in front of their nose? Denial is a powerful motivator. Think of the parent who refuses to acknowledge that their child needs professional help or the spouse who ignores mounting evidence of a cheating partner or the individual with intermittent chest pain who postpones a visit to a doctor. Willful blindness goes hand in hand with wishful thinking. The problem with living in a bubble is that bubbles burst. As Ayn Rand observed, “You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”  

One might assume that denial is a problem faced by individuals, not groups. When people get together, the thinking goes, they get smarter. As the old saying goes, “none of us is as smart as all of us.” But plenty of evidence shows that this is not the case.  There is no safety in numbers when it comes to collective delusions. When great minds think alike, greatness evaporates.

Groupthink turns out to be a denial amplifier. First defined by Yale psychologist Irving Janis, groupthink explains how a group of intelligent people can fall prey to a shared form of willful blindness and overconfidence. From the Vietnam War to the Challenger disaster to the 2008 financial crisis, groupthink has led to poor and sometimes catastrophic decisions. Defined as “a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics,” groupthink promotes and reinforces reality avoidance.

According to Janis, it’s the reason we remain “color-blind in a sea of red flags.”

Janis identified 8 symptoms of groupthink

1. Self-Censorship

Group members withhold opposing information due to pressure to conform. “If everyone else agrees then I must be wrong.” 

2. Stereotyping

Group members reject views that challenge the group's ideas. Anyone who disagrees “doesn't get it” or is disloyal. 

3. Unanimity

Desire for agreement overrides motivation to evaluate other options. Assumes everyone holds the same belief. "It seems that we have reached a consensus so the matter is settled.” 

4. An illusion of invulnerability

Overconfident and excessively optimistic. “There is no way this could go wrong.” 

5. Rationalization

Group members ignore warning signs and don't question their beliefs.

6. Self-appointed "mindguards"

Those who shield members of the group from opposing information and act as censors to hide problematic information from the group.  

7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform

Questions are dismissed and discouraged. “Stop holding us up/back.” 

8. Belief in inherent morality

Group members may ignore the ethical consequences of their decisions because they believe in their group's inherent morality. "There is no doubt that this is the right thing to do.” 

Groupthink may explain why so many were shocked by the president’s debate performance two weeks ago. Red flags were there for quite some time but warning signals were systematically cast aside or met with denial, evidence was avoided or selectively interpreted, and dissenters were shunned. It seems that the Biden family is also engaged in its own well-intentioned groupthink, insisting that everything is just fine when it clearly isn’t.  An inner circle that is supportive is as valuable as having an inner circle that is honest and clear-eyed.  

To avoid reality avoidance, experts say every inner circle should have a designated dissenter-in-chief. Someone needs to be the skunk at the picnic to poke holes in the narrative, to offer constructive criticism, to voice unpopular ideas, and to float alternative options. As Adam Grant recently wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times, “service is not only about stepping up to lead. It’s also about having the courage to step aside.”  It’s invaluable to have an inner circle who believes in your light.  It’s also invaluable to have an inner circle who helps you see the light.