CO-OPERATION -"Game Theory"
I found it hard to relate to this idea at first but after reading the reader 3 again along with the additional reading, I have began to understand it a little more.
'When should a person co-operate, and when should a person be selfish in an ongoing interaction with another person?'. (The Evolution of co-operation, Preface - Axelrod, Robert)
What a great question. This question led Axelrod to research further into the game play theory only to find that the straight forward 'Tit for Tat' method outshone the more complex ideas.
I think this is a great method and I use it in daily situations. I have always been taught you should not give to receive, and I do still abide by this rule, but I feel you are allowed to bend this rule slightly in a professional situation. I have to relate back to my previous blog where I said I was guilty of not given back what I had taken from professional networks I am involved in. I think I need to apply this Tit for Tat method more when using the Web2.0.
I released I use this theory in my teaching often, especially when teaching private lessons. For example, I am due to be starting some new choreography with a student of mine, she is very passionate and has given me a list of three songs which she would like me to choreograph to. I have in fact made the job harder for myself by giving her the option to choose a song but I think in turn she will work harder for me and enjoy the creation process much more. It is just as hard for a dancer to connect with a song they don't know, as what it is to choreograph to a song that doesn't get your ideas flowing. Tit for Tat - the next dance will be my choice of music.
AFFILIATION - Association/Connection/Alliance
Reading the extract from Crisp, J & Turner, R. (2007), Pages 266 - 268, I have learnt a few new things about myself and the way I subconsciously interact with other people.
'Brain imaging studies conducted by Johnson and colleagues (1999) show that introverts are higher in arousability, the degree to which stimulation typically produces arousal of the central nervous system, than extroverts. The authors of this research argue that introverts are likely to steer clear of social interaction to avoid their arousal from reaching uncomfortable levels. In contrast, extroverts, who have low levels of arousal, have to seek out social situations to stimulate a desirable level of arousal.'
After reading this paragraph I now know I am most defiantly an "Introvert", I would rather find a way to solve a problem myself than have help from others. I work better alone. I enjoy my own company and I get anxious when seeking affiliation. All these are known to be traits of an Introvert.
So is this a good or a bad thing? I think a positive outcome of being an introvert is that it can make someone modest about what they do, they are happy to go about their daily jobs without even being noticed. Where as an extrovert would probably be seeking continuous reassurance and praise from colleagues. On the negative side an introvert will go unnoticed and for example miss out on a job opportunity, because they have not left a lasting impression on the employer like the outgoing and expressive extrovert did earlier that day.
Affiliation can, however, also be shaped by culture In a study of 22 countries, Hofstede (1980) found that the more individualistic a country was, the more its members desired affiliation. He argued that in individualistic cultures people develop social relationships in many and varied settings, but these relationships tend not to be particularly close. In collectivist cultures, on the other hand, people develop relatively few, but deep and long-lasting, relationships. To summarize, the studies discussed above suggest that in individualistic cultures, people may develop friendships in a fairly self-serving manner, whereas in collectivist cultures, friendships might be more likely to be characterized by selflessness and obligation.
I wanted to know more about the differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures and I found this really helped to put things into perspective.
Although I agree that as westerners we have individualistic traits and values, I personally believe I am a bit of both. What made question whether or not I was a stereotypical individualistic was the following sentence:
'In collectivist cultures, on the other hand, people develop relatively few, but deep and long-lasting, relationships.'. This sentence describes me perfectly, I have very few, hand picked networks and very few loyal and close friends. This is something I want to improve on even though I do value having these close connections, I now, would benefit from having a boarder network to be able to progress with my career.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM
Through our interactions, we can make meanings, which might be the values we attribute to a particular network, our preferred ways of engaging the network or the extent to which we are willingly to contribute selflessly to the network.
As I have mentioned in an earlier blog, my professional relationship with my boss (the principal of the dance school where I teach), has now turned into a personal relationship. I think this transition has given me more meaning to what I am doing. For example, I feel more involved with the whole school in general which has made me, in turn, feel more appreciated and a part of the team. Now I am part of the team I would willing do anything asked of me, paid or not, to help the school to grow.
This just proves that all these theories are connected. Everything is connected!
