Running head: Module 4 – Group think 1
Group think
Rasmussen College
This paper is being submitted recently..about Political Thought course.
In the last few years, my colleagues and I have been working on a research to prove a
theory that cholesterol can have negative health effects on children. The theory was suggested by
Phillip, my coworker, who is a highly respected, established and well known in the scientific
community. Phillip’s theory was supported by five case studies done in various regions
throughout the country in the two years leading up to his proposal of the theory. As a result, our
employer dedicated five researched, including myself, to investigate and further this study using
substantial amounts of government funding. After one year, the team gathered to evaluate and
assess progress after experiencing great economic success in the study. At the meeting, my
colleague Rose raised concerns that initial theory is unsupported and argued that there may be a
relationship between high collateral and negative health implications on children, the study has
not proven that there is a casual relationship between the two. Rose was heavily criticized at the
meeting buy later was proven to be correct by a rival lab company. The group’s scrutiny of Rose
when she challenged Phillip’s theory was unwarranted, as we now know we should have
considered her objections more seriously. The analysis of enlightenment thinkers Locke and
Rosseau will show demonstration on how majority rules, or how groupthink can be positive and
negative implications in society and is dependent upon whether the common good will be
supported.
To begin, it is important to understand that both philosophers were enlightenment
thinkers who overwhelmingly supported the idea that individuals were entitled to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness if in doing so no harm comes to the others in the process. In
Group think
Rasmussen College
This paper is being submitted recently..about Political Thought course.
In the last few years, my colleagues and I have been working on a research to prove a
theory that cholesterol can have negative health effects on children. The theory was suggested by
Phillip, my coworker, who is a highly respected, established and well known in the scientific
community. Phillip’s theory was supported by five case studies done in various regions
throughout the country in the two years leading up to his proposal of the theory. As a result, our
employer dedicated five researched, including myself, to investigate and further this study using
substantial amounts of government funding. After one year, the team gathered to evaluate and
assess progress after experiencing great economic success in the study. At the meeting, my
colleague Rose raised concerns that initial theory is unsupported and argued that there may be a
relationship between high collateral and negative health implications on children, the study has
not proven that there is a casual relationship between the two. Rose was heavily criticized at the
meeting buy later was proven to be correct by a rival lab company. The group’s scrutiny of Rose
when she challenged Phillip’s theory was unwarranted, as we now know we should have
considered her objections more seriously. The analysis of enlightenment thinkers Locke and
Rosseau will show demonstration on how majority rules, or how groupthink can be positive and
negative implications in society and is dependent upon whether the common good will be
supported.
To begin, it is important to understand that both philosophers were enlightenment
thinkers who overwhelmingly supported the idea that individuals were entitled to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness if in doing so no harm comes to the others in the process. In
