EPT

         Mead's argument is arguing about how those with the highest grades, most attractive or most likely to succeed are admired. Where as those where we regard success of people close at hand, within our small group, as a threat. I agree with what Mead is saying because we celebrate and admire those with the highest grades, those that look most attractive, and those that are most likely to succeed.

         Mead says people love success. "As a people, we Americans greatly prize success. We are taught to celebrate and admire the one who gets the highest grades, the voted most attractive or most likely to succeed." I agree with these because people love success, the people are smart but not as smart are not admired. No one wants a failure, no one wants someone with the lowest grades, the most unattractive, and the most unlikely to succeed. All of these are useless to one another.

         However, Mead also says, "But while we often rejoice in the success of people far removed from ourselves - people who work in another professions, live in another community, or are endowed with a talent that we do not especially want for ourselves - we tend to regard the success of people close at hand within our own small group, as a threat." What Margaret Mead is saying here is that we regard the success of people near us, as a threat. People have a talent that they don't want especially for ourselves.

           I think people should be praised, admired whether or not they're not attractive or whether or not they're not getting good grades. What matters is that they try. People that try are the ones that should be getting the most praise. Although there are some people that say, "Trying is great, but trying doesn't get you far sometimes. You need more than trying, you need to be good." I don't agree with this because when you keep trying eventually you'll be good at it. However, there are some things where you can't be good at by just trying.