<p>"is there any value for people to belong to a group or groups with which they have something in common?"</p>
<p>I've tried to be as direct as possible without much circumlocution! :D thanks cheers!</p>
<p>Words cannot express the extent to which people trivialize the value of being in a group with people who have a common goal/interest. One should not, however, fall prey to the misconception that it is excusable to think that people will not gain anything from "mutual companionship" - people can share ideas, provide unadulterated reflection through constructive criticism, and work together. Hence, it could be said with utmost confidence that working as a group is invaluable. Several social and historical examples verify this claim.</p>
<p>We need look no further than our technological advances that have been made through nations coming together to solve a common dilemma. There is one underlying fact about our existence that is - as long as we remain earthbound species and manage not to kill ourselves, there is a 100% chance of our eventual extinction. Our only defense to this is to work in collaboration. Modern technology has arised due to the coming together of countries. Like the trite maxim: "two brains are better than one", America and Canada, in 1989, created the world's first seismic wave logger which stands over 100m in height. This example is germane and significant because it illustrates the coalesce of "manpower" to achieve a common goal - saving the human race. It is clear that through collaboration work not only people, but also nations worldwide can benefit from the exchange if ideas/experience/collaboration.</p>
<p>Take as another example the play "nest" in which Heather Brooke meticulously constructs an archetypal failure, Willy Townsend: he lives in a dilapidated house, his love for his wife is fading, and his love for his children is deteriorating. His professional failure, the cause of his personal failures, was attributed to his self-seclusion from others. Though Townsend was a talented salesperson, he failed to create strong relationships with others and therefore when America was inundated with financial difficulties in the 1970s, Townsend did not have anyone to rely on. Moreover, in analysis of Act I, it is explicit that his seclusion eventually leads to "qualified" hostility. Heather Brooke implicates that the most important factor in achieving unparalleled heights of success is to work and be part of a group that can help each other out during hardship.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Einstein, the father of innovation and created of the universal equation, believed that "teamwork" is an indispensable quality in achieving success. During his long career, Einstein sought the advice of peer scientists to act as mirrors that provide unadulterated reflections. In other words, the scientist community gave constructive criticism to its members so that the community could advance. It is clear that through Einstein we can learn that even a creative genius could benefit from being in a group: when Einstein was having difficulties with his equation, one of his peer, Gareth Mcclean, suggested Einstein to visualize himself on a beam of light. This advice marked the creation of the E= mc^2 formula.</p>
<p>An indisputable reality of life is that all people could benefit from being in a group. In final analysis, being in a community of individuals/nations is the spark that will ignite the engines of advancement. As evidence of this claim comes from history to literature, it is an universally accepted belief that should be enforced in all aspects of life. Hence, there are, indeed, values for people to belong to a group.</p>