Pluralistic Ignorance

For me, looking at the shocking physical change of Jacqueline after the accident was troubling, but I was able to find the message behind the story. On the other hand though, some may not be able to look at the story long enough to see what exactly it is all about. There is a fine line between getting the point across and it just being plain staggering. In this story I can agree with others when they feel it is a bit too grim. The point could have been expressed in a less extreme way. It may not be as jolting to the mind as now, but the point would still be made. There is not a specific group of people this story is reaching out to. The idea of this story was intended to reach people from driving age on up. Anyone that can drive a car should be exposed to these types of stories so they know what the risks of drinking and driving are. If a story like hers does not touch your heart and make you do everything you can to prevent this from happening to anyone else, then nothing really

People have a tendency, known as social proof, to believe that others' interpretation of the ambiguous situation is more accurate than their own. Hence, a lack of response by others leads them to conclude that the situation is not an emergency and that response is not warranted. Finally, empirical evidence has shown that the bystander effect is negated when the situation is clearly recognized as an emergency. In a 1976 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Lance Shotland and Margaret Straw illustrated that when people witnessed a fight between a man and a woman that they believed to be strangers to each other, they intervened 65 percent of the time. Thus, people often do not respond appropriately to an emergency situation because the situation is unclear to them and as a result, they have misinterpreted it as a non-emergency based on their own past experience or social cues taken from others.

In “Problems and Promise in Pluralism,” Annalee R. Ward argues for academic freedom through the lens of confessional pluralism. Ward challenges the academy to revisit pluralism to ascertain whether various denominations can have an “engagement of differences in creative ways” that allow for coexistence in scholarship” (Eck 9). Although academy insists that pluralism tugs on personal integrity, closer examination show that “authentic peaceful coexistence” is a possible outcome when approached correctly (Ward 5).

Social psychology first examined the phenomena later termed “bystander effect” in response to a 1964 murder. The murder of a young woman with as many as 38 witnesses and none who helped until it was too late. The bystander effect is individuals seeing an emergency situation but not helping. There are many reasons why individuals do not respond: diffusion of responsibility, not noticing or unsure if it is an emergency, and not wanting to be liable if the person still dies are a few.

I like and agree with you on the way as you presented your analysis, I agree that Elizabeth Svoboda makes use of real-life examples from start to ending not only to support her article, but to captivate the audience and make it more real and credible to the readers, and in the meantime, to support the what, why and how. I noticed the uses of Facts vs Opinion included this in your summary. You definitely established your agreements with the author with a solid basis.

1. After the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese, John Darley and Bibb Latane were in shock as the rest of the city/world that a 28 year old lady could be stabbed in a neighborhood with about 38 by standers or more and say or do nothing. Why didn’t anyone try and help her? How could people stand by and watch this go on? People speculated that the failure of people to get involved might be due more to the influence (socially) that bystanders have on each other. To test this theory, Darley and Latane, two psychologists, decided to conduct a study. “Diffusion of Responsibility” Everyone hopes that someone else will be the first to step up

In the United States, pluralism is pertinent and very significant for the government because the government itself is distributed with various powers given to the states. These states then give powers to their local governments, which continues to distribute the power. In the government system, there are levels of that consist of branches that control the many different parts of the system, so that no one person or group is given too much power. The United States has a system of checks and balances, which is pertinent to the power system and the pluralist theory ("What is a pluralist theory of government?" 2017).

People often only realize this after the worst occurs. One person’s actions can stop something from going downhill. In class, when we analyzed 60 Minute’s “Bad Samaritan,” through David Cash’s story, we came to realize that indeed, just one person’s actions could make a difference. If David Cash had stopped the violence, Sherrice Iverson would still be alive today. If Hitler chose not to exterminate Jews, the Holocaust would not have happened. The takeaway is that if we expand our universe of obligation, we will feel responsible for more people. In turn, we will help more people, and furthermore, we might prevent something terrible; we might prevent a genocide. Through analyses in class, we realize that more often than not, people have a very limited universe of obligation. In the video which we watched in class of a Gay Teen being bullied, many people in the surroundings of the video ignored the incident. It is clear, that they do not feel obligated to the teenager. Similarly, in Night, Franek simply takes out Eliezer’s crown without any guilt. Franek does not feel obligated to Eliezer. This feeling leads to the division of society. An analysis of Night allows teens to understand the need for an expansion, to create unity and change the world for the

To be clear, the intent of this essay is not to argue for or against the content; instead, we are analyzing what the article does in terms of the following:

In the world, it is so easy to walk past an individual that is in distress without even knowing that there is something wrong. People notice something and expect the individual in front of or behind them to assist the distressed, and it happens more than often. For example, driving past an individual that is stranded on the side of the road is so simple. It is much easier to drive past than assist, especially when driving on a city street. Many people think about helping, and want to help, but they just do not.

As Americans, we have the privilege to live blissfully in ignorance. An Ignorance that stems from fear and hatred. Fear that some will not always be able to preserve their power and social status, which feeds into the hatred toward those who threaten the status quo. Since the beginning of civilization, people have been discriminated against for differences they have no control of such as, but not limited to, their race and gender. These people have been ostracized and conditioned to believe their differences are abominable and unacceptable to the rest of society. These segregations have resulted in violence and disorder, from those demanding equal civil treatment the only way they know how. How does a nation that pledges indivisibility

When pondering about a theory that would fit with the things I witnessed at the meeting and the questions I would as a person, I believe that there are specifically two that would coincide with each other. Those theories are the social learning theory and the strain theory. Social learning theory is defined as the view that people learn by observing the actions of others (Social Learning Theory). On the contrary, Strain theory is defined as the society putting pressure on individuals to achieve a socially accepted goals, though they lack the means, thus straining a person and there will be a higher possibility of crime being committed (Strain Theory). I believe that these two theories coincide for a variety of reasons: people learn each

In 1964 a woman known as Kitty Genovese was murdered and although she was heard begging for help from 38 neighbors for more than a half an hour, no one decided to help by calling the authorities. The notion of deciding to help those in need is known as ‘bystander intervention’, which raise high awareness after Kitty’s murder (Baumeister & Bushman, 2011). Darley and Latane (1968) decided to further investigate bystander intervention and it was concluded that higher assistance is provided when only one bystander is present within the ongoing situation in contrast to when several bystanders are observing, which is known as the ‘bystander effect’. This becomes evident because several bystanders are less likely to feel responsible for intervening leading to ‘diffusion of responsibility’, which was present in Kitty’s case where bystanders thought that someone else would intervene eventually and thus did not feel accountable to take any action. Diffusion of responsibility was shown in a study by Darley and Latane (1968) in which 72 university students heard other people’s problems. While they heard each person sharing their problems there was also a man who as he informed, was suffering from seizures. At some point the recorded man appeared to experience a seizure and what was observed was that 85% of the participants who believed were alone provided help in contrast to a 31% of those who thought other participants were present. Thus, what can be understood is that people are more likely to help when alone rather than in

This is seen through diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and victim effects. Each influence scopes and molds that behavior of the individual, in terms of actions pertaining to prosocial behavior. Through the diffusion of responsibility, individual diffuse responsibility onto someone else and thereby releases that mold of responsivity along with the source of added pressure. If the individual is in a group situation, they are more than likely to feel less obligated to help. Therefore, if the individual is alone, they may more responsible for calling for help.

The question of “who get’s what, and how” is the guiding concern presented in the general argument of elitism vs. pluralism this week. The authors of the three key texts seem to each take a varying approach to answering this question, with some offering more extreme answers than others.