I found the topic of co operation or 'game theory' very interesting. I understand that game theory focuses upon the results of co operation and the decisions to co operate or not.
I was intrigued when reading about Robert Axelrod in Reader 3 and decided to do some more research.
"Under what conditions will cooperation emerge in a world of egoists without central authority? This question has intrigued people for a long time. We all know that people are not angels, and that they tend to look after themselves and their own first. Yet we also know that cooperation does occur and that our civilization is based upon it."
Adapted from Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books,
1984. Reprinted by permission.
I was fascinated to read about The Prisioners Dilemma game. I found this example from 'The evolution of co operation' by Robert Axelrod clear to understand:
"In this game there are two players. Each has two choices, namely “cooperate” or “defect.” The game is called the Prisoner’s Dilemma because in its original form two prisoners face the choice of informing on each other (defecting) or remaining silent (cooperating). Each must make the choice without knowing what the other will do. One form of the game pays off as follows:
Player’s Choice
If both players defect:
If both players cooperate:
If one player defects while the other player cooperates:
One can see that no matter what the other player does, defection yields a higher payoff than cooperation. If you think the other player will cooperate, it pays for you to defect (getting $5 rather than $3). On the other hand, if you think the other player will defect, it still pays for you to defect (getting $1 rather than zero). Therefore the temptation is to defect. But, the dilemma is that if both defect, both do worse than if both had cooperated."
I can see how this realates to professional networking and how we approach a networking situation. Both parties must must co operate! Relating this to myself and my work I can see that I could definitely co operate a bit more! I think it is definitely good to be aware of patterns and what works well for you but also not be too restricted to that as different situations require different approaches.
The Affiliation section of the reader definitely made me intrigued to read more. I read 'The Essential Social Psychology' (publication author/editor Crisp, Richard J. and Turner, Rhiannon N.) This made me question if I was an introvert or extrovert and how I feel being on my own and with groups. I would have said I was neither an introvert or extrovert beforehand but obviously I was just picturing the extremes. When reading about the social experiment done on children in orphanages it made me think about the importance of how you are brought up and what you are surrounded by at a young age. I was always surrounded by people! I was already at a child minders before I was 1 and this daily group had around 10 kids in it. I was exposed to my peers extremely young and therefore was learning social skills and making friends from a young age. My mum had a very large circle of friends as she was a hockey player. All the families would go on tour so at a young age I was part of big groups. I've never actually thought about it before but this is probably linked to how I am as an
adult. I don't dislike being on my own but I prefer being surrounded by people. I have always found it
easy to make friends and would say I was popular throughout school and college. I like being part of a group. A team. I am very close to my friends....many of whom are more like sisters. I also have a very close extended family of aunties, uncles and cousins. As a child I was part of many sports teams, theatre groups....I never remember spending time on my own after school or at weekends. I found this extract interesting....
"In this game there are two players. Each has two choices, namely “cooperate” or “defect.” The game is called the Prisoner’s Dilemma because in its original form two prisoners face the choice of informing on each other (defecting) or remaining silent (cooperating). Each must make the choice without knowing what the other will do. One form of the game pays off as follows:
Player’s Choice
If both players defect:
If both players cooperate:
If one player defects while the other player cooperates:
Payoff
Both players get $1.
Both players get $3.
The defector gets $5 and the cooperator gets zero.
Both players get $1.
Both players get $3.
The defector gets $5 and the cooperator gets zero.
One can see that no matter what the other player does, defection yields a higher payoff than cooperation. If you think the other player will cooperate, it pays for you to defect (getting $5 rather than $3). On the other hand, if you think the other player will defect, it still pays for you to defect (getting $1 rather than zero). Therefore the temptation is to defect. But, the dilemma is that if both defect, both do worse than if both had cooperated."
I can see how this realates to professional networking and how we approach a networking situation. Both parties must must co operate! Relating this to myself and my work I can see that I could definitely co operate a bit more! I think it is definitely good to be aware of patterns and what works well for you but also not be too restricted to that as different situations require different approaches.
The Affiliation section of the reader definitely made me intrigued to read more. I read 'The Essential Social Psychology' (publication author/editor Crisp, Richard J. and Turner, Rhiannon N.) This made me question if I was an introvert or extrovert and how I feel being on my own and with groups. I would have said I was neither an introvert or extrovert beforehand but obviously I was just picturing the extremes. When reading about the social experiment done on children in orphanages it made me think about the importance of how you are brought up and what you are surrounded by at a young age. I was always surrounded by people! I was already at a child minders before I was 1 and this daily group had around 10 kids in it. I was exposed to my peers extremely young and therefore was learning social skills and making friends from a young age. My mum had a very large circle of friends as she was a hockey player. All the families would go on tour so at a young age I was part of big groups. I've never actually thought about it before but this is probably linked to how I am as an
adult. I don't dislike being on my own but I prefer being surrounded by people. I have always found it
easy to make friends and would say I was popular throughout school and college. I like being part of a group. A team. I am very close to my friends....many of whom are more like sisters. I also have a very close extended family of aunties, uncles and cousins. As a child I was part of many sports teams, theatre groups....I never remember spending time on my own after school or at weekends. I found this extract interesting....
"According to evolutionary psychologists, our tendency to seek out others and
form close relationships is an inherited trait that helps us to survive and repro-
duce by providing us with a network of support that will help us when we are in
need."
Is me having a large close group of friends and family really a subconscious selfish decision? I will give all the support they need as long as they are there for me when I need them? I don't think I am that person. I am always the one my friends come to for advice and support. But then again I do rely on them and expect them to be there for me too. But that's just the rules of friendship isn't it?!
The Social Affiliation model (O'Connor & Rosenblood, 1996) is the "idea that people control their level of contact with others to keep it stable and as close as possible to a desired level." I can relate this to how we professionally network ourselves. Very interesting!
I therefore think I must be an extrovert! I think. This obviously has it's pros and cons. I found an interesting article about the advantages of having an extrovert employee, which also relates to networking and how approachable you are to strangers. This quote particularly stood out for me as it linked to networking:
"Because extroverts are social, they are comfortable with communication and relaying information. They are excellent motivators and work well in teams. The extroverts are the staff members you send to networking events such as seminars and trade shows. Chances are an extrovert will outsell an introvert and he'll be the one to talk a disgruntled customer out of wanting to go to a competitor. Because the extrovert has a wide social circle, your company
likely has a lot of free advertising in the form of casual conversation."
Here is the link for the whole article:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-extrovert-employees-over-introvert-24479.html
Another article I found: http://brainstormpsychology.blogspot.sg/2013/06/being-extrovert-ups-and-downs.html stated that extroverts are....
- outspoken
- thrive in the company of other people
- constantly seeks new experiences
- easily bored
- drawn to crowds
- generally quite animated
- assertive
- responsive to external stimulus
- opinionated
- can handle social pressure
I am ALL of these! I can also from this list see how some of these can also be disadvantages. Especially when thinking about professionally networking. You don't want to be too opinionated. And being easily bored could be an issue too. I think it comes back to what I said earlier....I enjoy talking about myself and find it easy to sell myself. I need to work on my listening skills though. I easily switch off from a conversation. I've been like it all my life. As a child I needed constant stimulus and was always given jobs by the teachers as I had so much energy. I was quite mischievous and naughty at school. I was usually just bored. Outspoken can also be considered a con. When
networking you don't want to be too outspoken and opinionated when you have just met someone. I find this topic interesting and wonder how much genetics plays in all of this. All my family are extroverts!
I also found it interesting when I read this quote in the reader:
"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
Is me having a large close group of friends and family really a subconscious selfish decision? I will give all the support they need as long as they are there for me when I need them? I don't think I am that person. I am always the one my friends come to for advice and support. But then again I do rely on them and expect them to be there for me too. But that's just the rules of friendship isn't it?!
The Social Affiliation model (O'Connor & Rosenblood, 1996) is the "idea that people control their level of contact with others to keep it stable and as close as possible to a desired level." I can relate this to how we professionally network ourselves. Very interesting!
I therefore think I must be an extrovert! I think. This obviously has it's pros and cons. I found an interesting article about the advantages of having an extrovert employee, which also relates to networking and how approachable you are to strangers. This quote particularly stood out for me as it linked to networking:
"Because extroverts are social, they are comfortable with communication and relaying information. They are excellent motivators and work well in teams. The extroverts are the staff members you send to networking events such as seminars and trade shows. Chances are an extrovert will outsell an introvert and he'll be the one to talk a disgruntled customer out of wanting to go to a competitor. Because the extrovert has a wide social circle, your company
likely has a lot of free advertising in the form of casual conversation."
Here is the link for the whole article:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-extrovert-employees-over-introvert-24479.html
Another article I found: http://brainstormpsychology.blogspot.sg/2013/06/being-extrovert-ups-and-downs.html stated that extroverts are....
- outspoken
- thrive in the company of other people
- constantly seeks new experiences
- easily bored
- drawn to crowds
- generally quite animated
- assertive
- responsive to external stimulus
- opinionated
- can handle social pressure
I am ALL of these! I can also from this list see how some of these can also be disadvantages. Especially when thinking about professionally networking. You don't want to be too opinionated. And being easily bored could be an issue too. I think it comes back to what I said earlier....I enjoy talking about myself and find it easy to sell myself. I need to work on my listening skills though. I easily switch off from a conversation. I've been like it all my life. As a child I needed constant stimulus and was always given jobs by the teachers as I had so much energy. I was quite mischievous and naughty at school. I was usually just bored. Outspoken can also be considered a con. When
networking you don't want to be too outspoken and opinionated when you have just met someone. I find this topic interesting and wonder how much genetics plays in all of this. All my family are extroverts!
I also found it interesting when I read this quote in the reader:
"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."
I am from the countryside in the north of England, spent 10 years living in London and now I live in Singapore! I wide variety of different cultures and ways of life to think about! How has that affected how I am in social situations and in relationships?
The theory of connectivity and social constructionism states that through social interaction humans construct meanings of the world and their experiences in it. In networking, we find preferred ways of engaging with a network and decide how much we are willing to put in ourselves as well. The theory of Connectivism provides an explanation about how networks both learn and provide the means for individuals to connect and learn. It suggests that we need to interact so that we can learn and that teaching methods need to be modified. The idea of communities of practice where emphasis is placed on the shared interpretations of the community as opposed to "hierarchical formations of knowledge" is something I see as extremely beneficial. People coming together over shared interests and experiences can bring great benefits. It may also produce learning realised in different forms. Wenger identified a community of practice as existing on three dimensions:
"What it is about - its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members
How it functions - mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity
What capability it has produced - the shared repertoire of communal resources."
There are so many different areas to now think about with regard to professional networking. I am amazed as I did think this section of the module was going to be quite straight forward for me as I thought I already understood what works and what doesn't. However, I now feel like I had only ever scratched the surface. I was only taking and not putting in. I am an extrovert, which I have never called myself before! I am looking deeper into my surroundings when I was growing up and questioning how those affect ones social connections and networking abilities. I can see the benefits of using different methods when networking and I am now in more of a position to understand what makes a good professional networker. Fascinating stuff! :-)
I am from the countryside in the north of England, spent 10 years living in London and now I live in Singapore! I wide variety of different cultures and ways of life to think about! How has that affected how I am in social situations and in relationships?
The theory of connectivity and social constructionism states that through social interaction humans construct meanings of the world and their experiences in it. In networking, we find preferred ways of engaging with a network and decide how much we are willing to put in ourselves as well. The theory of Connectivism provides an explanation about how networks both learn and provide the means for individuals to connect and learn. It suggests that we need to interact so that we can learn and that teaching methods need to be modified. The idea of communities of practice where emphasis is placed on the shared interpretations of the community as opposed to "hierarchical formations of knowledge" is something I see as extremely beneficial. People coming together over shared interests and experiences can bring great benefits. It may also produce learning realised in different forms. Wenger identified a community of practice as existing on three dimensions:
"What it is about - its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members
How it functions - mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity
What capability it has produced - the shared repertoire of communal resources."
There are so many different areas to now think about with regard to professional networking. I am amazed as I did think this section of the module was going to be quite straight forward for me as I thought I already understood what works and what doesn't. However, I now feel like I had only ever scratched the surface. I was only taking and not putting in. I am an extrovert, which I have never called myself before! I am looking deeper into my surroundings when I was growing up and questioning how those affect ones social connections and networking abilities. I can see the benefits of using different methods when networking and I am now in more of a position to understand what makes a good professional networker. Fascinating stuff! :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment