Birds of A Feather Flock Together Example

Introduction

‘Birds of a feather flock together’ in its literal sense implies that birds of a similar kind or breed tend to flock together to carry their common activities such as feeding. For instance, it is very rare to find a vulture feeding together with a group of flamingos. In its proverbial sense, the birds are analogous to people and ‘a feather’ is analogous to character traits, interests, habits, or ideas, summarily, the proverb implies that people who share common interests or have the same character traits tend to keep each other company frequently.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

From a deeper perspective, people with similar characters, habits, ideas, or interests find it easy to be around each other. They can do certain things, use certain terms, or express certain views without the phobia of looking or sounding odd. For instance, a teenager will find it difficult to sit in a room together with adults who are discussing family issues, or more vividly, a person who does not use recreational drugs will find themselves very uncomfortable in a group of those who do so.

From a psycho-social perspective, people would want to be with other people who are like them and more so to avoid the outcast tag. Different things make different people begin to enjoy hanging out together. Some of these factors may include politics, business, technology, careers, or even the use of recreational drugs and criminal activities. Individuals with interest in politics tend to be together most of the time discussing new political developments.

Just like those with interests in politics, often you will find criminals hanging out and even cooperating in conducting criminal activities this is because the 'flocking' is not just limited to positive similarities but negative shared interests too.

An individual who has no know-how or any interest in political activities might find it difficult hanging around with individuals who are always discussing politics, in such instances, he would want to seek a more favourable company in which he is likely to make a little contribution or enjoy the activities of the company.

Generally, flightless birds such as chicken are unlikely to flock with flying birds such as eagles. And neither are humans with no common habits, interests, character traits, or ideas likely to congregate together or hang out. It takes the similarity of the feather to make the company enjoyable and more comfortable and secure.

This proverb is traced back to hundreds of years, a proverb is a precise and concise statement that pieces of advice people on a certain event or shares a collective truth. This proverb implies that individuals of common interests, thoughts, experiences, or characteristics will hang out with each other. Birds and other animals only walk and live together in their groups. This is major because of friendship and security purposes. As humans, we have the wisdom and knowledge to choose whoever we want to spend our time with. We usually make friends with individuals of similar personality and skills; those with similar views and interests

Personality and social psychology

Social psychologists are amongst the persons involved in conceptualizing and forecasting societal behavior along with studying it. Public behavior is similarly deliberated by novelists, political front-runners, religious leaders among others, besides it is a popular subject on TV shows. However, the social-psychological method of conceptualizing communal conduct stretches past the simple scrutiny of human behaviours. Communal psychologists argue that an accurate understanding of the origins of collective manners is only obtainable via a logical scientific strategy, and that is the reason they carry out a scientific study. Social psychologists trust that the research of public conduct ought to be experiential— grounded on the gathering and logical scrutiny of evident data.

Social psychology is majorly concerned with the interactions among individuals, and we can regularly get answers to queries on human actions using intuition, several persons’ reason being; it is unnecessary to analyze it through empirical methods (Lilienfeld, 2011). Although we study individuals through observing them hence social consciousness is partially but not entirely common sense.

Amongst the several reasons we perceive collective consciousness as common sense is because the moment, we discover the result of a particular occurrence, for instance, reading about the outcomes of an inquiry, we normally trust that we can be in a position to foresee the findings before the actual period. For example, when half the total number of learners in a given lesson is informed that a study regarding attraction amongst individuals, revealed that contraries are attracted, and the additional semi is informed that an investigation has proven that birds of the same feathers fly together, many learners in the sets will explain trusting that the result is correct and that they would foretell the result before hearing about it. Certainly, the two conflicting results cannot be right. The challenge here being the analysis and explanation of study results makes us reflect on various scenes that we know supporting the findings and therefore making them appear authentic. The possible trend of thinking that we can foresee is a thing that we perhaps would not be able to guess is known as the hindsight prejudice.

Common sense makes us trust that we know the reasons we take part in the actions we take part in when for sure we might not. Daniel Wegner, a community psychologist, and other associates have carried out various researches revealing that we constantly do not comprehend the reasons for our conduct. Thinking about an action before we participate in it makes us certain that the actions have been directed by our thinking, even when that was not the case ( Gray & Wegner, 2010). Individuals say that they also largely impact problem-resolution when they trust that they put more effort into it, although the strength has not raised their impact on the result. Such results among others prove that our views on the origins of social occasions and also of our activities, do not continuously match the actual origins of the actions.

Social psychologists carry out a study because it frequently reveals findings that cannot be foretold before the actual period. Continuously guessing the test discloses our thoughts to inspection (Sapolsky,2017). The logical method leads to many disbeliefs, although it similarly assists in examining the clarifications on behavior in an elaborate way. It is essential to comprehend the study approaches applied in psychology to assess the rationality of the inquiries that we read around in our everyday life.

We are unable to have control over the actions of other people or to foresee precisely what they are planning to accomplish in a particular state. Human action is complex due to people’s intricate nature and the societal circumstances they are involved in daily are also complex (Jackson,2019). The collective psychology of intergroup associations has risen massively from researches on how a group of individuals feels and thinks about another. By reducing the communal world to two groups, this method has delivered an actual and effective procedural outline. Though, it has also hidden major features of public associations is generally alienated cultures.

One initial observational research that majorly contributed to comprehending human character was conveyed in an article written by Leon Festinger among others (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956). The article titled When Prediction Flops, described an observational investigation about the followers of a “doomsday” trendy. The associates of the cult said that they had seen a piece of evidence, allegedly conveyed via automatic script from a planet known as “Clarion,” that the universe would be terminated.

Weaknesses of the social psychological literature

Explanations given are deterministic; they assume that all conducts are the consequences of social processes for example the surrounding. Conducting researches environmentally valid mostly results in ethical concerns, for instance, the participants do not always know that they are taking part in the study hence they do not give consent. We mostly tend to please other persons in our daily lives hence social psychology tests are quite susceptible to demand characteristics leading to unusual actions(Bandura et.al.,2001).

Yes, people are fascinated with individuals who share similar interests to theirs, for instance, swimming, bird-watching, soccer, or religion. The moment we have to join a flock; we are influenced by it. This is why we keenly monitor the friends our children are associating with. It also becomes significant to discover the right surroundings where we are influenced. If you have ever watched birds in an environment then you can confirm that the proverb is true; whenever you spot a flock of birds flying in a group, it consists of the same type.

Conclusion

Scientists argue that birds flock together because there is safety in numbers; this enables them to be safe away from predators. A bird flying alone would be so easy for a predator such as a dog to kill as compared to when birds are flying in a group. Individuals sometimes similarly conduct themselves. Students in schools hang out with friends who share the same interests and behaviours.

References

Jackson, L. M. (2019). The psychology of prejudice: From attitudes to social action (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.

Sapolsky, R. M. (2017). Behave The biology of humans at our best and worst. Penguin Books.

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 125–135.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.125https://doi.org/10.1037/0000168-000