The scenario of rebuilding society after a devastating disaster presents a heart-wrenching challenge: carefully screening those who plan to choose those who can provide them with the skills and means to make them usable in a harsh new environment for the long term. This so-called “successful process” is nonetheless susceptible to social influences, indicating the significance of comprehending how group nature and individual tendencies could pervert decision-making (Spielman et al., 2020).
In this essay the focus will be to show how social components influence the survivor’s choice, using knowledge gained in a class discussion and highlighting the factors that limit people’s decision-making power. After that, the paper will tackle the issue of group hugging the discussion as noted and propose measures to manage its effects when coming to another talk.
Individual Choices and the Influence of Discussion:
The selection order according to attributes like medical skills, age, and ability to procreate would be standard in this initial phase. Nevertheless, triggering class dialogues alters perspective because they bring new details not envisaged before. For example, focus on psychology or how victims can cope with traumas caused by disasters. Social relations that the group may develop will also be a factor in the success of the colony group, with a chance that the part of the group will stay as couples or individuals.
Such transitions convey how social persuasion leads to better judgments. Sample sentence: Therefore, adopting sustainable fashion choices is a crucial step towards reducing the harmful effects of the fast fashion industry on our environment. Discussions offer a place for exploring different views and strengthening the fragile areas in one’s thinking (Spielman et al., 2020). The hindrance of any one specific individual’s judgment is as significant as the sum of all other types of judgment.
Rethinking Choices with New Information:
Thanks to the Oracle’s reports which contained more information concerning the destiny of all the survivors, the examination listed above must be made again. To demonstrate the mentioned issue, the doctor’s (Survivor 3) existence questions the belief that the medical profession results in the supposedly desired capabilities. Investigating this topic through the availability heuristic frame of mind means that overlooking the big picture by putting blind faith in the ‘doctor’ is unhelpful in making wise options (Spielman et al., 2020).
As for this example, in the case of the former prostitute (Survivor 4), the obstetrics profession is marred by the ignorance of a society which thinks all previous prostitutes are unfit for this profession. Enlightening the fact that there can be an in-group/out-group bias would help to scrutinize her excellent skills neutrally.
This instance illustrates how the mindset and immune system can create a uniting consciousness for individuals and groups alike. The greater the danger, the greater the chance that values steer clear of logical and evidence-based assessments, basing their choices on stereotypes or available facts.
Group Polarization and the Quest for Consensus:
Polarisation within groups is likely to be more significant because it reinforces the views they already had before the discussion starts, thus making the final decisions more extreme (Spielman & al, 2020). One may witness this demonstration of preference by observing if the class discussion seemed to be slanted towards favouring some components or another. For instance, promoting young, fertile women may have taken the front row in the class discussion. That may have obscured other essential skills and experiences.
Moreover, there is a risk in considering only one side of the debate that could show homogeneity in a group. It is unwilling to dispute the dominant ideas and a case of being a conformist and following the majority. On the other hand, yielding a mighty consensus that blindly turns out to be valuable skills of some diverse perspectives (such as the engineer) could be a sign of groupthink that disregards harmony from critical thinking.
The first of these approaches becomes essential in recognizing cases of group polarization in discussions in order to counter their influence. For instance, mentioning phrases from the debate that demonstrate credence to the society benchmark or inadvertent criticism towards an opinion with a different point of view would also intensify the argument.
Moving Forward: Strategies to Counteract Groupthink
The group polarization effect entails the risk of a specific group’s seizure of power; hence, there is a need to develop sound strategies to stimulate favourable and constructive discussions. Difficult as it may be, the first critical step is supporting active and diverse participation and engaging those with different opinions from the dominant narrative (Spielman et al., 2020). Adding a “devil’s advocate” function to the group’s composition is an extra step to support critical thinking by ensuring that the opposing viewpoints will be considered and listened to.
Besides, creating an atmosphere that provides scope for the students to have independent opinions before they join the group regarding their decisions will enable them to appear as individuals and not lights of the same fire with the same group of people. Eventually but not least, tackling the biases with facts and objective evidence only allows for solutions based on proven reality rather than the emotions of certain groups.
Conclusion
A decision on which survivor to choose that could be applicable in a post-disaster scenario should be a well-thought-out choice regarding skills, know-how and future societal needs. The main issue is admitting the role of social factors, not only in the existential choice of every person but also in a group. Group polarization might imply that the group will be blind to the priorities, and some skills are helpful for them to develop. Through actively promoting a wide range of ideas, critical thinking, and conviction on shown proof, we can work towards more balanced, effective decision-making in times of confusion.
Reference
Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W., & Lovett, M. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax College. https://openstax.org/details/books/psychology-2e
write