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.
Kass (1997) says that the people of society will be prone to comparing the performance of a
Graham, Jesse and Johnathan Haidt. 2011. The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of
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 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
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 codification of deviance can vary widely between different cultures, a norm in one culture can be considered deviant in another. For example, the notion of cannibalism has been proved by anthropologists to be a spiritually divine form of ritualistic sacrifice in the ancient Aztec culture of Mexico. Yet in Western culture murder and the consumption of human flesh is considered highly revolting, dealt with by harsher consequences by law than most other deviant crimes. These differences are due to the way each individual society develops their own moral codes. These codes are often defined by cultural ideologies, adversity to other cultures and ritualistic practises which have become accepted, as well established patterns in the development of culture. Lloyd, M 2007 implies this by saying 'we are born into a pre existing (social) order the comes ready made with a large stock of norms and rules we must learn if we are to participate as c...
...osh, D.E., Dixon, F. Newton, J.H., & Youman, E. (2010). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, With A High-Achieving Sample. Psychology in Schools, 47(10), 1071-1083.
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
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
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.
In this paper I will be determining the moral development stages in which the individuals I interviewed belong. I chose four individuals all from different backgrounds of life, male and female, with their ages ranging from
Furnham, A. 2001. Self-estimates of intelligence: culture and gender difference in self and other estimates of both general (g) and multiple intelligences. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, pp. 1381-1405.
In the past, research often examined child and adolescent popularity levels and their relation to peer group affiliation, developmental outcomes, and a host of other variables. Recent literature has however established a variation within the concept of popularity that challenges past research regarding its effects and characteristics. Popularity is now understood to encompass two different constructs: sociometric popularity and perceived popularity. Sociometric popularity is described as representing a person’s level of overall likeability, and sociometric popular peers are frequently described as kind, trustworthy, and dominant, but not aggressive (Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). On the contrary, perceived popularity captures an individual’s level of social reputation despite likeability (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). It encompasses a peer’s status, influence and centrality in a peer group (Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006). Perceived popular peers are often described as untrustworthy, unkind, and dominantly aggressive (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Unusually, perceived popular peers are also regularly found to possess prosocial tendencies despite their overwhelming use of aggression (Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006).
Norms are by definition general society guidelines and expectations of appropriate behavioral conduct in a particular environment or society. These guidelines could be formal and written such as laws that prohibit stealing or they could be implicit such as behavioral conduct or dress code. Every society has its own way of endorsing and enforcing certain norms and standards of proper behavior while renouncing and sanctioning improper behavior. In general, norms are of a significant importance because they guide our behavior and maintain order in society by providing conformity. Furthermore, norms render behavior predictable rather than random, thus allowing us to predict and understand other people’s actions and behaviors in different situations. On the other hand, divergence from norms is termed “deviance” and can lead to chaos and instability. It is noteworthy to mention, that the culture background and context play an important role as each culture processes its own norms, values, standards and expectations. For instance, in certain cultures shaking hands between opposite sexes is inappropriate, and this is the case in Yemen. Thus our perception of norms in different culture is critical: either we choose to understand an individual’s behavior according to his own culture context and set of norms (cultural relativity) or we choose to understand an individual’s behavior according to our own culture which we believe to be more superior (ethnocentrism). An example of ethnocentrism where norms and values of a certain culture have been imposed on another is the banning of the veil worn by muslim women in France. In contrast, cultural relativism appears in Lebanon where muslim women are perceived in terms of their own culture and are a...