Perpetuated Mediocrity in the Lower Socioeconomic Areas of Appalachia Throughout my life, I have found several things that I have had to write off as merely unexplainable. One of greatest incidents I’ve encountered as of lately is how it is the societal norm for the vast majority of individuals who reside in the lower socioeconomic regions to perpetuate the poor quality of life that has stricken them since birth. At first I merely wrote these individuals off as those who chose apathy over drive. But once I had the opportunity to view a truly poor town I knew this categorization mustn’t be the case. In this area each individual seemed to wallow in the same poverty as their fellow residents. This societal structure was shown to me in my time
…show more content…
81) is that we learn about our own abilities and attitudes by comparing ourselves to other people. Humans are constantly learning and evolving, what better way to track your growth and development other than to compare where and what you are currently doing with your peers. This theory is comprised of three critical points. The components of the social comparison theory are as follows, people desire accurate knowledge, if available, they will consult an objective standard; if not they will compare with another person, and people will gain the best knowledge when comparing with similar others. All of these are completely reasonable if you were to apply them to yourself. For the sake of the current topic of the lower socioeconomic areas of Appalachia, all of these individuals’ peers are relatively in the same boat as they are. If all someone is exposed to is mediocrity and that person resides securely in the range of what constitutes mediocrity, there is no reason for that person to believe they are not doing anything out of line with whom they identify. A stronger driving force to keep to the status quo would be their parents, which is the main source of influence to an individual. For example, if someone that lives in one of these impoverish areas have no driven peers and the parents or guardians of this individual do not attempt to push them …show more content…
What made the least sense to me as I analyzed this community traveling to and from work is the homogeneity of the people I would see. There was not a poor and wealthy side of town, no socioeconomic split whatsoever. I thought that I would eventually cross into suburbia but there was none in sight. Not until I was able to apply the concept of Pluralistic Ignorance (Text, p. 115) was I able to understand why the vast majority or even entirety of the individuals were just as impoverish as the other. Pluralistic ignorance can be defined as the individual motivation not to deviate from the group norm. In other words, it is the individual motivation not to be different or to be viewed as an outsider to the group. The group in this scenario is the small Appalachian town in southeastern Kentucky. An individual in this population will be naturally motivated to be akin to their fellow group members so that they maintain the feeling of belonging to a group. This ignorance to personal advancement being outweighed by group attachment encourages and perpetuates the ideals of mediocrity. In addition, individuals can also engage in another concept in this chapter called the self-fulfilling prophecy. This concept nearly parallels the aforementioned idea of self-handicapping in that both concepts
81) is that we learn about our own abilities and attitudes by comparing ourselves to other people. Humans are constantly learning and evolving, what better way to track your growth and development other than to compare where and what you are currently doing with your peers. This theory is comprised of three critical points. The components of the social comparison theory are as follows, people desire accurate knowledge, if available, they will consult an objective standard; if not they will compare with another person, and people will gain the best knowledge when comparing with similar others. All of these are completely reasonable if you were to apply them to yourself. For the sake of the current topic of the lower socioeconomic areas of Appalachia, all of these individuals’ peers are relatively in the same boat as they are. If all someone is exposed to is mediocrity and that person resides securely in the range of what constitutes mediocrity, there is no reason for that person to believe they are not doing anything out of line with whom they identify. A stronger driving force to keep to the status quo would be their parents, which is the main source of influence to an individual. For example, if someone that lives in one of these impoverish areas have no driven peers and the parents or guardians of this individual do not attempt to push them …show more content…
What made the least sense to me as I analyzed this community traveling to and from work is the homogeneity of the people I would see. There was not a poor and wealthy side of town, no socioeconomic split whatsoever. I thought that I would eventually cross into suburbia but there was none in sight. Not until I was able to apply the concept of Pluralistic Ignorance (Text, p. 115) was I able to understand why the vast majority or even entirety of the individuals were just as impoverish as the other. Pluralistic ignorance can be defined as the individual motivation not to deviate from the group norm. In other words, it is the individual motivation not to be different or to be viewed as an outsider to the group. The group in this scenario is the small Appalachian town in southeastern Kentucky. An individual in this population will be naturally motivated to be akin to their fellow group members so that they maintain the feeling of belonging to a group. This ignorance to personal advancement being outweighed by group attachment encourages and perpetuates the ideals of mediocrity. In addition, individuals can also engage in another concept in this chapter called the self-fulfilling prophecy. This concept nearly parallels the aforementioned idea of self-handicapping in that both concepts