It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves
When people are growing up, they are gradually socializing themselves and recognizing their positions in the society. However, how do citizens define themselves? Some people advocate that it is through the identification with social groups that individuals understand who they are. While I concede the merit of this view, to some degree, I am at odds with this argument, which cannot expound the formation of the majority, if not all, kinds of self-identification. In my opinion, people learn themselves from three sources: society, family, and individual.
To begin with, the identification with some social groups is the most commonly observed character. For instance, we are born with a specific nationality and deeply shaped by it. According to our nationality, we know who we are and distinguish “our and others.” This is the first source of identification.
However, the aformentioned statement based it on an unsubstantiated assumption that social gourps are the main, if not sole, source of self-identification. On the contrary, we cannot turn a blind eye to other kinds of communication and interactions. Besides social activities, the interactions with family members also help us define ourselves. The role of family members, such as parent, brother, and sister, is significantly different from the identification originating from careers or nationality. The basement of the former is not from monetory relationships or power structure but love and sacrifice.
Furthermore, the argument is open to doubt, when some identification comes from individual natural characteristics and is immuned from the influence of external forces. Sextuality is a great example that individual can solely decide which gender is attractive to him or her. Scientific research has demonstrated that genes rather than education are the main determinant of sextuality. Therefore, we have observed a stable ratio of homosextual group to the general population around the world whether the government is supporting equal rights, ignoring homosextuality, or even punishing homosextual behaviors.
To summarize, as I have manifestied above, even though we cannot ignore the role of the communication with social groups in defining individuals, we should also take account of other factors. For example, family members help people figure out their specific responsibilities. Moreover, some identification is formed just according to one’s own nature and does not require the interactions with others.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-27 | mei_unavailable | 58 | view |
| 2023-09-03 | zanzendegi | 54 | view |
| 2023-08-29 | tomlee0205 | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | Jeyodi | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-01 | Jonginn | 66 | view |
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves 83
- Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than 61
- Claim: The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.Reason: Heroes and role models reveal a society's highest ideals. 83
- Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 66
- The following is a recommendation from the Board of Directors of Monarch Books."We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because 55
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, while, for example, for instance, such as, in my opinion, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2138.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 375.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.70133333333 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.4989268196 2.79657885939 125% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 215.323595506 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586666666667 0.4932671777 119% => OK
syllable_count: 683.1 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.8939098241 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.9 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.75 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.3 5.21951772744 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.329627192472 0.243740707755 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0866963009139 0.0831039109588 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0908412199809 0.0758088955206 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184045715278 0.150359130593 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0889319332268 0.0667264976115 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.8420337079 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.78 12.1639044944 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.