People form conclusions based on the concepts they use, which are shaped by their backgrounds and experiences. While different people studying the same topics may reach similar conclusions, their differing perspectives can also lead them to divergent conclusions. Concepts are limited by human perception and understanding, so people viewing the same information through different lenses are likely to have different takeaways and form different opinions, even if starting with the same initial knowledge.

1. To What Extend Do the Concepts that We Use Shape the Conclusions that We Reach?
Concept formation involves the process of gathering information, forming opinion and
forming conclusion out of the information gathered. In order to carry out these activities, one
needs to modify concepts to suit his/ her personal ambitions. People form ambitions for reaching
conclusions based on the concepts they feed their minds with. Conceptualization involves
divergent or convergent results. People may base their conclusions on different concepts but still
the conclusions reached are similar. Conceptualization breeds bias. In connection to that
prejudices emerge out of such concepts even though they are from completely different concepts.
Concepts are formed when one uses knowledge gained from life to make conclusions.
Therefore, there is a chance that a teacher may have a different conclusion from that of a doctor
or a driver regarding a particular chain of events. Psychologically speaking, these different
professionals have different concepts about the approach to life (van, Berg, and Ølholm 2). There
is a probability that the conclusions that these people reach may be same or different. One thing
is definite; that they employ different methodologies to arrive at their conclusions.
In convergent conclusions, such people arrive at the same conclusion despite the fact that
they employed different methods to reach at the same or almost the same conclusions. In
connection to that, concepts have the likelihood of either having a crooked conclusion or just a
straight conclusion. Before delving so much into the ideas of conclusions, one should try
questioning the conscious whether all concepts necessarily form conclusions. If not all concepts
form conclusions, would it be viable to write this paper? Given the fact that it has already been
observed that most concepts may differ but ultimately lead to the same conclusion. However,
same concepts may lead to different conclusion depending on the moral, ethical and intellectual
standpoints of individuals.

2. It is true to note that a moral philosopher, a legal scholar and a sociologist may not hold
the same belief with regard to gay rights and homosexuality (Gupta 96). Whereas all may start
from the point of morals or human rights, the conclusions that all reach are more likely to be
different from the same. For instance, the moral philosopher would advocate for upholding of
moral truths and the supreme law and thus advocate against gay rights. All may agree on the fact
that human dignity is a factor that ought to be accorded maximum respect and should not be
tinkered with even at the slightest of provocations. It is also a fact that the gay rights propagator
and the legal scholars would most probably dine on the same table. On the other hand, the
theologian and the legal scholar would definitely be at crossroads over contentious issues such as
gay rights and abortion.
It is important to note that not all concepts have the potential to lead onto viable
conclusions. Such conclusions would not have a concrete and viable basis. However, several
concepts when intertwined together have the potential of forming a viable conclusion. Such
conclusions have the potential to create a strong conclusion. It is important to note that such
conclusions have a strong capacity to create unending prejudices. Such prejudices create the
tribal stereotypes that exist in the world of today (Graumann and Moscovici 100 – 110).
Whenever different professionals exist in the society, it is evident that there are
conflicting interests that exist among them. These exist due to the fact that they have different
standpoints to life. However, given that all human beings belong to the same species, they find
themselves united by the same needs that make humans common. Therefore, it is important to
note the fact that despite the diverse standpoints to life, no one can delineate themselves from the
fact that he is a human being (Skloot 65 – 77). Therefore, despite the fact that a medical doctor
has a different opinion to the approach or interpretation of life from a lawyer, the fact that they

3. make conclusions on life on the same platform indicates that they are all human with the same
motives and aspirations.
On the account of lawmaking in the legislative bodies, parliamentarians make decisions
based on their understanding on life. Since they ail from different professions, they are likely to
differ in the method of reasoning. However, such people usually arrive at almost the same
conclusions. This signifies the fact that though people may have different conceptual
frameworks, some issues about life cannot simply be different among people. In order for order
to be maintained in the society, people choose to agree on issues that are pertinent on their lives.
It is therefore in order that those people to disregard the methods they use to reach conclusions
but look at the conclusions themselves.
After covering convergent thought pattern, the second part analyses divergent thought
patterns into decision making. Why do same group of people have different outcomes as the
output though they have the same training?
Take a sweep through a number of people who graduated on the same day with the same
degree, say 15 years later. The individuals might have graduated from the school of law. But, are
they all lawyers? Maybe not. Though not all are lawyers, they all took the same lessons by the
same lecturers while in College. Perhaps, these people, each in to their conviction know or think
that they made the right decision. It then amazes you how the ‘the right thing’ can be so different
(Gothard 359). This divergence of thought pattern points to the question, does man really know
what he knows? If so, then, how come all men get the same information as input but have a
different output?
Whatever we see in our daily life, it becomes what it is because of the reason that we
believe it is that. Generally speaking, we accept only an idea that will align to what we already

4. believe to be or believe in. In 2008, Krebs Valdis at orgnet.com analyzed the book purchase
trends on Amazon and it came out clear that the same people who had supported President
Barrack Obama were the same people buying the books that talked positively about him. It
should be noted that we can only know anything to a certain extent. That is to say; we cannot
have an absolute knowledge of a given parameter in life. But then, what is this knowledge that
we talk about? Knowledge is just but the perception we have about a particular thing, issue or
situation. An individual with strong beliefs about an issue in life will only learn more about that.
The new ideas they may learn will be informed by what they already believe in.
This set of beliefs inform their new experiences and tends to deter them from being
liberal in the mind. These strong beliefs, we develop from personal experiences or education
(Dobbs-Weinstein 72). All individuals in a group may get the same education but then since they
all come from different backgrounds (personal experience), not all from that group will end up in
the same career line. Perhaps each and every student in the law class setting has in their mind
some truth about the career path they take. Those who go into litigation know that it is the best
for them; same to those who go into consulting. But this truth cannot be universal or common
among them all despite the fact that they all sat in the same class at the law school. From the idea
of confirmation bias, truth is merely the opinion you form over the years after getting
information, assimilating that which aligns to your beliefs and discarding that which challenges
your preconceived notion. This leads to the divergence of thought leads to different outcomes
though the input may be common.
The human organs can only work with a limited range of information. The ear for
example, can only perceive up to a given frequency of sound. That means that we can only know
sound (a parameter) to the extent that the ear can perceive. Beyond that given frequency, we

5. cannot have any more knowledge of sound. We believe that objects that are far appear small and
so we incept that information as knowledge. We know that objects far from us appear small.
However, this is all for the perception we get due to the structure of the eyes that we use to see
that particular object (Bruce and Ahmed 163 – 166). This perception means that if two people
stand on a given platform, one with normal eyes and the other with a defect in the eyes, the
perception (the way they see the object) they will have of the object will be different. Their
thoughts or knowledge diverge because of the perception they have, though the subject matter is
the same object. This way of getting knowledge might lead to very diverge (and sometimes
wrong) conclusions since everyone would only be targeting to know it their way, according to
what they observe and believe in, like it was first believed that the sun went round the earth just
because it appeared as if the sun went round the earth.
One of the most crucial parts of human life is communication. This is done through
words and other means. These words, when spoken, have to be heard and processed in the brain
before a response can be given. Since the words also have different meanings, they invoke
different emotions and, therefore, different responses in different individuals (Harman n/a).
Though a word or statement might be same and spoken to a number of people, each of them can
end up interpreting the word to give each a divergent meaning giving rise to a conflict in the
output. It is argued that language carries the meaning of what we think. It is, therefore, natural
that it defines what we know in the world and that which we do not. It defines our understanding
of the world around us. Since the human brain has different levels of understanding the
surrounding phenomena (language included), it is expected different individuals will have
divergent or different understanding of a common word or phrase spoken to them (Nabergoj
165).

6. Reason is the net product of the relationship between the information you get
immediately and its connection to that which you have prior. One can know that what they are
perceiving is wrong, but they still perceive it that way. For instance, the prior knowledge that
humans walk in an upright (vertical) position will take precedence even if someone was walking
uphill where the reality is that they bend a little (Shushan n/a). Since we may have different prior
experiences, subjection to a common phenomenon will not automatically lead to a common
agreement in thought. Each of us would use their prior information and relate it or marry to their
current position before coming up with an outcome or belief. This means the outcome must be
different, logically (Miller Jr and McNamee 127).
Works Cited
Bruce, Ken, and Abdullahi D Ahmed. Conceptions of Professionalism: Meaningful Standards in
Financial Planning. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing, 20 May 2014. Print.

7. Dobbs-Weinstein, Idit. Spinoza’s Critique of Religion and Its Heirs: Marx, Benjamin, Adorno.
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 12 June 2015. Print.
Gothard, Charles. The World Trust Survey. Ed. Sanjvee Shah. United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press, 4 Mar. 2010. Print.
Graumann, Carl F, and Serge Moscovici. Changing Conceptions of Conspiracy. New York, NY:
Springer New York, 1987. Print.
Gupta, Bina. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Perspectives on Reality, Knowledge, and
Freedom. New York: Routledge, 9 Sept. 2011. Print.
Harman, Gilbert. Conceptions of the Human Mind: Essays in Honor of George A. Miller. United
States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 12 Sept. 1993. Print.
Miller Jr, Robert, and Stephen McNamee. Inheritance and Wealth in America. Boston, MA:
Springer US, 1998. Print.
Nabergoj, Irena Avsenik. Reality and Truth in Literature: From Ancient to Modern European
Literary and Critical Discourse. Germany: V&R unipress GmbH, 24 Apr. 2013. Print.
Shushan, Gregory. Conceptions of the Afterlife in Early Civilizations: Universalism,
Constructivism and near-Death Experience. N.p.: Continuum, 20 Oct. 2011. Print.
Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishing Group,
Feb. 2010. Print.
van, Hubert, Berg, and Marianne Ølholm. A Cultural History of the Avant-Garde in the Nordic
Countries 1900-1925. Ed. Hubert van den Berg, Irmeli Hautamaki, and Benedikt Hjartarson.
Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V., 19 Jan. 2013. Print.