The Problem With "If Everyone Else Jumped Off A Bridge..."

Note: The following essay is derived solely from personal observation.

So, you've probably heard the retort: "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?", maybe from a parent whose child wants something unreasonable (or not so unreasonable), and uses the justification "But everyone else is getting it/doing it/has it!" Maybe your own parents said it to you, or you've said it to you kids. It doesn't have to be a strict parent/child conversation, it could be a conversation between any two people, really. I've heard it come from friends, co-workers, miscellaneous family members, teachers, and probably people with other relationships to the addressee as well, in both the media and in my own life.

There are several problems with this retort. First, and most obviously, it's implying that the person (and whoever else is doing this thing) is somehow stupid or at the least in possession of so poor judgement as to do whatever's popular, regardless of the practical consequences. It always came off as quite insulting and not a little condescending to me, as if the person saying it (especially if that person is an authority figure, like a parent or teacher) did not think highly of the other and thought this person would be so horribly lost without them. Putting someone on the defensive doesn't seem like it's likely to get your point across.

Second, it's usually a completely inappropriate comparison. For example, a teenager wanting to get a tattoo might argue that all their friends are getting tattoos, thus prompting their parents to reply with "If all your friends jumped off a bridge...". While it is true that there are some dangers associated with tattooing, as well as some social stigma in certain groups, among other legitimate objections, there's no real comparison between getting tattooed and jumping off a bridge. Some might argue that the "jumping off a bridge" is just arguing following the group to an absurd conclusion to get the point across. Does it get the point across? Would the teenager in this hypothetical suddenly realize that following the group is not always a good idea and reconsider their stance? I'd hazard to guess probably not.

Third, the argument tries to break the person away from their chosen in-group, which usually leads to poor results. I may write more extensively on my understanding of the dynamics of in-groups and out-groups later, but for this post, I'll simply say that tribalism is alive and well, and people rarely like to go against their chosen tribe, and there are many reasons for this sociologically and perhaps other reasons ranging from the practical to biological.

This was a thought that occurred to me today. And as I consider it, it seemed to me that saying such a thing serves no real purpose, other than to express contempt for the idea or the people who embrace the idea. Should parents and teachers really use this sort of retort on children, especially young children?