People tend to compare themselves to others in present modern day. Comparison has no limits; they do not just compare their homes, their cars, their families, but also their intelligence. Sometimes questioning their own analogies and wondering why is it that they must compare and contrast? Truth is a large majority of humans cross-cultural all tend to compare each other. When comparing each other’s social intelligence and cognitive intelligence based on academic achievement professionals may find a distinction between social metric popularity a measure of acceptance and perceived popularity a measure of social dominance (Meijs, Cillessen, Scholte, Segers, & Spijkerman, 2010). The distinction between Sociometric popularity and perceived popularity was in a form of measurement that was generated by a perceived intelligence test. The experimental study had a total of 512 participants in which 56% were girls and 44% were boys between the ages of 14 and 15 years old. Although there was certain limitations to this study for example the possibility of not being able to determine if sociometric popularity and if it is influenced by academic achievement, or the other way round. The intention of the research, which was to compare students from different educational levels, proves that social comparison is common amongst today’s generation. The focus on this current experimental paper is on Social comparison theory based on an intelligence test.
Present day social comparison is amongst different moral cultural backgrounds and even amongst different genders. When comparing moral norms and social conventions as a cross cultural comparison Mordecai Nisan, 1987 theorized that when comparing secular urban Jews, secular kibbutz Jews, and traditio...
... middle of paper ...
...gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1118-1134.
Meijs, N., Cillessen, A. H. N., Scholte, R. H. J., Segers, E., & Spijkerman, R. (2010). Social intelligence and academic achievement as predictors of adolescent popularity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), 62-72.
Nisan, M. (1987). Moral norms and social conventions: A cross-cultural comparison. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 719-725.
Poeschl, G. (2001). Social comparison and differentiation strategies in social representations of intelligence. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Revue Suisse De Psychologie, 60(1), 15-26.
Rossman, B. B., & Gollob, H. F. (1975). Comparison of social judgments of creativity and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 271-281.
Shaughnessy, M. F., & Wakefield, J. F. (2003). Creativity: Assessment. In N. Piotrowski & T. Irons-Georges (Eds.), Magill's encyclopedia of social science:Psychology (pp. 459-463). Pasadena, CA: Salem Press.
Culture expresses itself in many ways, shapes, and forms. Many of these are interconnected to everyday life, and just as many are unnoticeable if one does not know where to look. Each culture has their own deeply ingrained set of rules and social requirements; this includes a moral code. The Dou Donggo people are an example of separate morality in motion – existing side by side with an outsider legal system, with a different standard of morality, and different standard of ideals to go with it.
...r that students’ thoughts and ideas about moral behavior may differ based on their cultural background.
General intelligence tends to relate to various degrees with each other (Cohen 2012). An example of this is that if an individual is good in math, they may also be good in spelling. In this weeks reading we reviewed several different models of measurement of intelligence. In regard to these theories and general intelligence (g), the theories are various but have commonality and overlap. The Spearman's two-factor theory is if a test has high correlation with other test than the measurement of g is highly saturated (Cohen, 2012). The greater the importance of g on a test, the better the test is believed to predict intelligence
The author argues that certain decision leads to vast amount of untapped human potential and limits success to few who are selected unjustly. This example supports “Mathews Effect”. The Gladwell’s example of Bill Gates proves the “10,000 Hour Rule”, He explained that the timing and opportunity played a huge role to become an expert at computer programming. Bill Gates had access to computers decades before computers became mainstream. Such a timing helped him capture the opportunity to master the tool of trade and put him in the perfect position to start Microsoft. The Gladwell’s example of experiment by Lewis Terman, He argues about that a person’s IQ have a limited control over success. He claims that there is a minimal difference in the levels of success attained by those with IQs between 125 and 170. The author adds that IQ cannot efficiently measure person’s creativity. A person who has a high IQ does not mean that it has a high chance of winning a Nobel Prize because other kind of intelligence matter too. With the help of these facts, Gladwell proves that the relationship between IQ and success is
Over many years people have seemed to develop their thinking concerning morality based on resulting in interactions with individuals and social institutions. Different societies have their own cultures that have different ideas about how humans are to behave. Societies
The first aspect of society that influences morality is observation—primarily, what children observe among their families. There are natural gender roles that are stereotypically embodied in a family. For
His anecdotes presented in the article are appropriate in terms of his subject and claims. The author responds back to the naysayers by saying that people only look at the test scores earned in school, but not the actual talent. He says, “Our culture- in Cartesian fashion- separates the body from the mind, so that, for example we assume that the use of tool does not involve abstraction. We reinforce this notion by defining intelligence solely on grades in school and number on IQ tests. And we employ social biases pertaining to a person’s place on the occupational ladder” (279). The author says that instead of looking at people’s talent we judge them by their grades in school or their IQ score, and we also employ them based on these numbers. People learn more each time they perform a task. He talks about blue collared individuals developing multi-tasking and creativity skills as they perform the task they are asked to
Shaughnessy, M. F., & Wakefield, J. F. (2003). Creativity: Assessment. In N. Piotrowski & T. Irons-Georges (Eds.), Magill's encyclopedia of social science:Psychology (pp. 459-463). Pasadena, CA: Salem Press.
Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence focuses more on how numerical expressions of human intelligence are not a full and accurate depiction of people’s abilities (McFarlane, 2011). He includes and describes eight intelligences that are based on skills and abilities that are valued within different cultures. The eight intelligences include visual-spatial (e.g. sailor navigating with no navigational systems), verbal-linguistic (e.g. poets, writers, orators, and communicators), bodily-kinesthetic (e.g. dancers, athletes, surgeons, craftspeople), logical-mathematical (e.g. mathematicians and logicians), interpersonal(e.g. salespeople, teachers, clinicians, politicians, and religious leaders), musical (e.g. musicians and
By comparing ourselves with other people we categorize and label those who are similar to us as the in-group and people who differ from our-self are categorized as the out-group (Duff & Peace, 2012). We act in ways to favor our in-group rather than out group, this is called in-group favoritism. In-groups and out-groups are evident in many social environments, for example, children form groups with those who like playing similar games to them. In a study that explains in-group favoritism, an experiment was conducted by allocating individuals into groups based on the result of a coin flip (Billing & Tajfel, 1973). After having been told their group members, the participants then had to allocate points to members of their own group (‘in-group’) and to the members of the other group (‘out-group’). These members of the in-group ...
Social comparison and positive distinctiveness. Our social identity contributes to our self-image so we look for positive social identities to keep a high self-esteem. Comparing in groups and out groups allows us to enhance superiority of a group. The Social identity theory explains that the in group will discriminate against the out group to en...
It holds that, as a matter of fact, moral beliefs and practices vary between cultures (and sometimes between groups within a single society). For instance, some societies condemn homosexuality; others accept it; in some cultures a student who corrects a teacher would be thought to be disrespectful; elsewhere such behavior might be encouraged. The rules, principles and standards that constitute a morality differ in different religions, and cultures, just as they differ historically. The morality of ancient Greece was not the morality of feudal Europe or contemporary American; the morality of the Trobriand Islanders is not the same as the morality of the Kwakiutl Indians (Barnet, 2008). In this paper I intend to argue that moral reasoning
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Humans have notably different ethical standards which dictate what is or isn’t correct. Those standards are shared and followed by a group of people. For example, the concept of killing is not unknown. The typical response is to punish the one who commits that “crime,” even if that person was “right” to do so. However, killing may not seem like a crime to some people. Rather, to them killing is necessary for protection. Given that there are many cultures in the world, one can assume that each of those cultures is not like the other. They must all have their own ethical standards. In addition, it is suggested that a person refrains from assuming that one’s ethical standards are superior or inferior to another person’s standards. Cultural Relativism