It seemed that cohesive force, drive by one, strong purpose group should be for social harmony and quick decision process the precious asset in in modern, globalized society particularly with regard of World War 2 crisis in democratical values. Each environment in the social structures is focused on gearing to current conditions and future trends or perspectives about development. However, nothing is only white and black and expectations and final results can bring a completely bizarre turn of the case regardless of whether the decision is made by a group or an individual. Psychologist Irving Janis considered that groupthink effect brings sometimes as much strong unity with the rest of the social tribe that conflict can be resolve not with the best tools and mature glance. Group to avoid specified for the group a degree of psychological discomfort operates on schemes dictated by the main leader conception of reality and approach to the problem with the prone to suppression of dissent. Polythink as a plurality of the opinions and views warms people up in the Internet environment. For certain areas of content-based businesses this designed polarization between various groups provides more action on pages, company accounts or creator channels. These strategies absorbs the attention of users, stimulates the algorithm in favor of a person or organization and, as a result, contributes to advertising profits.

The syndrome of polythink where the number of different views is so diverse that it leads to 'intragroup conflict swarming and growing like a hornet's nest could easily rub off in the virtual space. However, before the technological revolution, individuals closely related to state power well observed this phenomenon and use or not for different goals. In environment where will arise the syndrome of polythink you can often meet with general distrust, rude behavior, cognitive biases, aggression and even the danger of a conflict of the nature of riots, organized assaults, or armed actions. The weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the groups have been using throughout history by intelligence agencies leading to the targeting of social groups to their preferred behavior at a given time. Counterintelligence structures responsible for the security of the state tried to prevent such ideologically controlled, harmful undertakings.

Cultural unity leads to uniform, monolithic point of view with predictable arranged solutions and produces groupthink. Groupthink submits to the ingroup bias where members are treating in a favored way compared to other social groups. It would appear that the polythink syndrome cause more damage and chaos in globalized societies, but problems can only inconspicuously embody a lighter version of the turmoil. Being a member of the group with the same viewpoint, interests, cultural background, living style, ethnic identity or any specific interests lead to gaining more empathy from a person who have the same identity characteristics. The shadow side of group thinking is the creation of an inner belief, strongly based on group psychology, about its infallibility or superiority as opposed to individuals outside the group or socially distinct groups.

Everyone likes school to some extent or does the school like its members under fulfilled conditions?

An interesting case of the problem of group thinking is the biography of Albert Einstein. In the primary scholl he was above-average student with the problems to adopt to German, highly disciplined education system.
His loud statements about educational institutions as an escape from fear, power and artificial authority were a recipe for making high-class enemies. He was more interested in exploring ideas on his own and pursuing his unique interests rather than conforming to the standards and old principles. Einstein argued that science and education should be based on learning to think and question already existing information and theories. His personal conviction was at odds with the scientific community, which caused him employment problems. Due to the conflict with the scientific community, Einstein was marginalized and had huge problems with stable employment. This open criticism from the group's perspective was perceived as exaltation, lack of loyalty to the accepted standards of the scientific community, undermining the work of people associated with the education system. Weber was Albert Einstein's initial doctoral advisor who hated the Einstein to this point that Einstein had to switched to Alfred Kleiner advisor. Einsteins theory of relativity itself became a battlefield, personified by a collection of essays against the theory of relativity “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein”. Today, science is trying to learn a lesson by introducing more openness in thinking in its structures. However, does education still face the same problems and the scientific community today also falls into the trap of cognitive biases or the issue of its internal policy? In the business digital platforms often serve users with content aligned with their previous behavior, reinforcing echo chambers.

Echo chamber manifests in internet when users with similar views dominate a particular community, the algorithm promotes content that reflects only those views, leading to the reinforcement of a singular narrative. This dynamic can limit exposure to diverse viewpoints, creating an echo chamber effect where alternative perspectives are rarely seen. The environment and its mechanisms of action are limited only to the experience of one group.
Another world is invisible to the user, as if it were in a cage.

The customers in online communities often seek social validation, which can lead what can lead to the design of simplifications of reality where the world divides the vulture into what is black and white. Of course, all people to some extent are burdened with their learned, based on previous experiences or beliefs, individual biases resulting from the influence of their environment. Marketers must strike a balance between fostering group cohesion and encouraging critical thinking to attract recipients, educate them and at the same time does not discourage them from visiting their content. For some companies it is definitely an uphill battle, but there are some healthy ways to manage conformity-seeking tendencies and prevent dysfunctional decision-making. Conformism is not everyone's nature, it is not always perfect option and often its use in a given situation must have logical sense as well as ethical balance. The devil is in the details. However, running and being responsible for business forces team to learn how to apply it. Marketers can create online spaces that prioritize psychological safety, where users feel comfortable expressing dissenting viewpoints without fear of backlash. Encouraging an inclusive culture where all voices are welcome can prevent the homogenization of ideas and promotes independent thinking.

Homogenic groups are comprised of individuals with similar backgrounds, values, or beliefs. This often puts groups in a mainstream narrative trap, narrowing the perspective on their surroundings. While cohesion is high, they are particularly vulnerable to groupthink. For businesses managing homogeneous groups, the focus should be on introducing external viewpoints through collaborations with influencers or experts who bring a fresh perspective. n groups with a clear leader or influencer, there is a higher risk of conformity as members may defer to authority rather than critically engaging with ideas. Businesses can counter this by decentralizing decision-making processes, encouraging multiple voices, and promoting a culture of shared leadership.

In the work environment, often leaning out with criticism is perceived by the management as a blow by the employee to their managerial competences. Online communities where members can participate anonymously often lead to greater freedom of expression but can also encourage negative behaviors like trolling or harassment. To mitigate groupthink in anonymous groups, businesses use tools that encourage accountability, such as temporary user handles for discussions, while maintaining a balance that protects anonymity.

How is AI used against cybercrime?

Cognitive biases can significantly influence group dynamics and reduce the effectiveness of decision-making processes, especially when certain demographic factors exacerbate these tendencies like age, social status or gender. In the Cyber Security Risk Management knowledge about phenomena like shared information bias was crucial to understand that even the educational background can’t protect against neglect of noticing unique data that could improve the quality of decisions. This can result in cybersecurity teams overlooking critical risks or vulnerabilities simply because they rely on commonly shared data rather than exploring diverse perspectives or hidden insights. The solution was AI coaching which identify emerging patterns in cyberattacks. The systems provides real-time threat detection and make data-driven recommendations, allowing security teams to make faster, more accurate decisions.
The attention of AI in these systems is generally focused on critical threats which saves time for reaction and resources allocation. In this way AI coach improves decision-making by helping teams focus on high-risk vulnerabilities before they escalate into full-scale breaches. In addition to improving technical and operational decision-making, AI coaching can help organizations adhere to cybersecurity regulations. With natural language processing capabilities, AI can interpret legal and regulatory requirements, providing real-time guidance on compliance. This reduces the likelihood of organizations facing penalties due to non-compliance with evolving cybersecurity laws.

Understanding how groupthink operates in online contexts, particularly in relation to social decision-making processes, is crucial for digital marketers and businesses that aim to foster healthy, innovative, and productive community dynamics. Online communities—whether on social media, forums, or other digital platforms—create environments where individuals can express opinions, seek social validation, and build relationships. However, these spaces are fertile ground for groupthink to take root. Digital platforms facilitate rapid interactions and often reinforce dominant views, leading to a reinforcement of conformity and stifling alternative opinions. Algorithms designed to amplify content that resonates with the majority may exacerbate this problem, fostering echo chambers where opposing views are alienated. Understanding the nuances of digital group dynamics, including how algorithms, anonymity, and rapid communication can influence conformity, is essential for preventing the detrimental effects of groupthink. Internet instead promoting of polarization battles should providing users resources and tools to identify and challenge cognitive biases which can help raise awareness of the echo chamber effect.