Why We Conform to Groups
Why We Conform To The Groups We Are A Part Of
Matt Gerry
14040633
4/2/13
Most people on this Earth are part of some group, whether they believe it or not. They have a group of friends, family, or co-workers whom they share a lot of time and space with. These groups that we are part of in our daily lives have a huge impact on our decision making. Chances are high that if the group an individual is a part of feels that option A is better than option B, the individual will think as their group does and pick option A, even if they know that option B is really what they would rather pick. The influence the groups we are a part of have on our decision making is enormous, we will dress like them, act like them, think like them, and believe what they believe, simply to fit it and not stand apart from the group. “Members of Citizen and Down Syndrome Family Association discussants argued strongly that IQ does not measure the range of social and general intelligence they most valued” (Koch & Ridgley, 2000, p. 387). The view-point from this association varies from the majority consensus that valuable intelligence can be measured via an IQ test because they are part of at least a couple small groups that sway their decisions in an alternate fashion. Most of the members of the Citizen and Down Syndrome Family Association either have family or friends who they love and care for that have down syndrome. Therefore, even if members of the group had previously believed IQ was a strong measure of valuable intelligence prior to having their child or meeting their friend, their love for and/or connection to the family who loves a child with down syndrome has swayed them to think otherwise. The down-syndrome family association, via the members love for their children and their need to protect their children from intelligence based prejudice have decided as a group that an IQ test is not a determinant of intelligence, even though the majority of people would say it is a
Matt Gerry
14040633
4/2/13
Most people on this Earth are part of some group, whether they believe it or not. They have a group of friends, family, or co-workers whom they share a lot of time and space with. These groups that we are part of in our daily lives have a huge impact on our decision making. Chances are high that if the group an individual is a part of feels that option A is better than option B, the individual will think as their group does and pick option A, even if they know that option B is really what they would rather pick. The influence the groups we are a part of have on our decision making is enormous, we will dress like them, act like them, think like them, and believe what they believe, simply to fit it and not stand apart from the group. “Members of Citizen and Down Syndrome Family Association discussants argued strongly that IQ does not measure the range of social and general intelligence they most valued” (Koch & Ridgley, 2000, p. 387). The view-point from this association varies from the majority consensus that valuable intelligence can be measured via an IQ test because they are part of at least a couple small groups that sway their decisions in an alternate fashion. Most of the members of the Citizen and Down Syndrome Family Association either have family or friends who they love and care for that have down syndrome. Therefore, even if members of the group had previously believed IQ was a strong measure of valuable intelligence prior to having their child or meeting their friend, their love for and/or connection to the family who loves a child with down syndrome has swayed them to think otherwise. The down-syndrome family association, via the members love for their children and their need to protect their children from intelligence based prejudice have decided as a group that an IQ test is not a determinant of intelligence, even though the majority of people would say it is a
Cited: All works cited came from articles on ABI/Inform 1) Frank, M. G., Thomas, H. F., Paolantonio, N., & Servoss, T. J. (2004). Individual and small group accuracy in judging truthful and deceptive communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(1), 45-59. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/223826994?accountid=14576 2) Koch, T., & Ridgley, M. (2000). The condorcet 's jury theorem in a bioethical context: The dynamics of group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(5), 379-392. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/223826666?accountid=14576