Task 3B Theories relating to networking

For me this task was based on Cooperation and Affiliation. They were the only sections that were highlighted as 'concepts'.

COOPERATION
The Prisoners' Dilemma.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html 
As given in Reader 3, I took on the 'perplexing game' of the Prisoner's dilemma.(see link) Robert Axelrod; a political scientist, talks about 'Tit for Tat' which means a "..strategy of starting with cooperation, and thereafter doing what the other player did on the previous move". (Axelrod, The evolution of cooperation, page 8[viii]) This was the strategy used by the Serendip in the game. Here were the strategies I used:

• Continually cooperating the entire time.
• Continually competing the entire time.
• Cooperating until the last move or few moves.
• Competing until the last move or few moves.
• Alternating cooperation and competition on every move.

 As expected; continual use of cooperation gave an equal high mark for both myself and the Serendip. Continual competition gave me a higher number of average coin value than the Serendip, but both at a low number, therefore not that beneficial. When I had ten moves and using cooperation until the last move, I got a higher score than the Serendip and higher than when using cooperation continually. When competing until the last move, I would always get the same score as the Serendip, but a much lower value, and when alternating the different moves, I would always come out on top or equal with a decent amount of coins per move.
It would seem, that cooperation is the best strategy when working in a team or where nobody has to end up on top. This will gain for one another the best results, individually or as a whole. In a selfish way, cooperating until the last move or two seems to be the best strategy. So I agree with Axelrod on; "..the importance of the notion of cooperation, and in particular, the benefits of cooperating fully with others, until you reach a point of maximum benefit, and then to 'defect'." (Axelrod, Reader 3, p5) But only when it means that you want to come out on top. 
Axelrod explains how using the Tit for Tat method was the strategy used that came out on top in his experiment. In the Prisoners Dilemma game that I did, it rings true that it is the strongest method to 'keep up' so to speak, but not as the best method (with the exception of the opposition cooperating the whole time), especially when getting the maximum benefit, for example; the Serendip was always using Tit for Tat, but never actually came out on top. The Serendip was either equal to me or beneath me in the end results. But as I've said the Tit for Tat method does show that you are not so far apart in results by keeping up, but always being second best. In reality, if the opposition using the Tit for Tat method accidently makes one false move, the opposition can take advantage.
It's really hard to truly understand without trying it out in reality, but I will stick to my guns on cooperating fully with others til the end, or cooperating fully until the last minute. Cooperating continually does have that Tit for Tat strategy in there, as both are, of course, Tit for Tat-'ing' one another.
Below is a wonderful way to express the advantage of cooperation:
'..it is easy to imagine that two wolves together would be able to kill an animal that is more than twice as large as the largest one each of them might have killed on his own. Even if an altruistic wolf would kill a rabbit and give it to another wolf, and the other wolf would do nothing in return, the selfish wolf would still have less to eat than if he had helped his companion to kill a deer. Yet we will assume that the synergistic effect is smaller than the gains made by defection (i.e. letting someone help you without doing anything in return).' (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html)
It is true that some people are deceived by competition, I think until now, I was a little bit deceived too.
I've always preferred team work, and I'm glad it proves to be a better and more advantageous way for everyone, even if somebody decides to defect last minute, the others will still have achieved more than if they had competed the entire time.

This has truly been an eye opener. I can use this for my teaching skills. My fellow colleague and I can discuss which ways can be a better approach in the lessons, of which can help both of us improve on our teaching skills and build up our qualities. This can also help to achieve a better result of our students' performances and give them a better chance of learning and give them a more favorable experience. I for one want to be noticed for my creativity, consequently receiving other possible opportunities. I can also try and find out what the other teachers do to produce great results, and adapt them into my work somehow. (Tit for Tat)
With my choreography, using the strategy of cooperating til the last minute can serve to be beneficial in any situation where I am indirectly competing against some more established choreographers, with the same or similar approach as me.  
In Megan Lewis' blog, she made me think about how relationships can break down by cooperating until the last move. It truly is something to contemplate as you must keep relationships steady, else you won't actually have a close working network to work with. You will have put peoples' backs up. http://napatnoon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/task-3b.html  She mentions how she believes cooperation leads to a more harmonious life. There is a lot to consider when deciding the right pursuit. I agree with Megan on this. Cooperation described as the 'will and way to win' by Alan Durrant in Reader 3, I now absolutely buy into, thoroughly, on a professional and personal understanding.

AFFILIATION
When and why we affiliate.
From my own understanding, we affiliate due to natural human instinct and intelligence; "our tendency to seek out others and form close relationships is an inherited trait that that helps us to survive and reproduce by providing us with a network of support that will help us when we are in need." (Crisp and Turner, Essential social psychology, p323) I've also come to the understanding that everybody has different levels of social stimulation; 'Introvert and Extrovert' (Reader 3, p6) which means some people who are introvert are more inclined to stay clear of much social interactions and extroverts are inclined to socialize more to keep to their each desired level of social stimulation. 
Talking of desires to affiliate, I have been debating which explanation of determinants of affiliation makes more sense, to me. The Privacy regulation theory brought about by Irwin Altman, (Crisp and Turner, Essential social psychology, p323) which was inspired by the 'dialectic principle' and 'optimization principle,' brings forth that the desire for privacy and affiliation can alternate in the space of a few hours and you can try to even out your desired levels with your actual levels of privacy and affiliation. For me, I think the Privacy regulation theory is more related to how I see myself and how I deal with my desires of affiliation. With the Social affiliation model (O'Connor and Rosenblood, '96) it provides the idea that we can regulate our desired level of affiliation on a daily basis. Like a routine. (homeostasis) I do find this true, but only with the exception of emotions as I think they haven't been taken into account. I really believe that emotions can disorder the routine. This goes especially for females. I believe that emotions can get in the way of a mental routine and particularly affiliation. So I do lean more towards the Privacy regulation theory more. I think that when I was at school, I definitely had a regular pattern and I could easily control my needs to affiliate. But, whenever I had to affiliate at my normal privacy time, for example; sports day or after school rehearsals, it would throw me off guard. With this, I definitely took on the optimization principle by evening out my desired levels to affiliate and not. I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would actually struggle with this principle, but would still try. 
This is quite an fascinating encounter as I'm quite interested in psychology.

When thinking about individual differences in affiliation, (in relation to biological explanations), extroverts and introverts; as mentioned above, has been quite intriguing. (Crisp and Turner, Essential social psychology, p324) I think that I am a bit of both of these. Some days I am very much extrovert and try engaging more with my friends, family and work colleagues to gain some stimulation. Yet other days, I just want to be by myself as I gain enough stimulation with my own mind. But, saying this, I do find myself to be a bit more extrovert, but I don't put enough effort into affiliating with others. I think that I would feel more content if I were to do so. I do live with my other half, and I feel that with that in mind, I am actually more than content. I know that I keep contradicting myself, and it now makes me think that I perhaps don't need to go out to affiliate with others. Maybe this is the reason why I don't? Not because I haven't put in any effort, but because I have affiliation constantly within my own living space on a highly emotional level.
Talking about cultural affiliation differences, (which has also been intriguing), connects greatly to my other half's culture. He is from a country which has a collectivist culture. I researched more into Individualistic and Collectivist countries, and this link proves to be the best for me to gain a true understanding:  http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/orudenstam/2012/10/05/individualism-vs-collectivism/   
My other half is very close to his family and me, and isn't one for socializing at all. I on the other hand, being from an Individualistic culture (Great Britain), do feel the need for some socialization. I am too very close to my family and definitely put them first when it comes to choosing a night out with my best friend or a movie night with my sister. With this in mind, I still have the need to see my best friend and affiliate at another time. My partner doesn't have any close friends, and only seems to socialize, in a very distant manner, at his work place. 
On a more personal level, this subject has been most appealing as it proves to be very true because of my current situation. I have definitely changed over the years to how much I feel the need to affiliate with others. When I was in my teens I would find satisfaction in just being around people, even if they weren't so close to me. Now I haven't got the need to affiliate so much. I seem to have adjusted to being in between individualism and collectivism, and I'm definitely more extrovert on a more personal level but introvert on a not so personal level.
With that in mind, on a professional level, being that bit more extrovert deliberately, would prove to be very useful in any career. I understand now that being slightly introvert isn't right or wrong, but using the Optimization principle can turn out to be very valuable within the workplace. There is always an individual being the 'life of the party' in any job, but it doesn't have to be you or me. As long as you keep a stable relationship with that person and everyone, good things can come out of it such as great opportunities and being able to cooperate without a sour atmosphere.
When I was at college, the phrase; 'seeking affiliation can be fraught by discomfort and anxiety' rings very true to that time in my life and a few other people that I know. (Crisp and Turner, Essential differences in affiliation, p324) There were a lot of people who had already begun friendship ties. Myself and a few others had to make an effort to seek affiliation. Being quite careful about who I socialized with and not having the confidence to bring up conversations (especially in an almost daunting environment), this was incredibly hard, hence, discomfort and anxiety came about quite highly. This was a real learning curve for me, and now this subject on affiliation has made me look at myself. I realize that being careful gives a negative impact and I think people thought that I thought myself as high and mighty, which was the complete opposite. 
Learning from these times has been very convenient and now I am a lot more open with people in the workplace.  To begin with I was very much out of my comfort zone, but now it's become natural and doesn't cause any uneasiness. I think being yourself is extremely important when affiliating with others, even in the beginning stage.
All of the aspects above on affiliation has been incredibly inspiring and I will be applying them into my current and future positions in teaching. Fortunately there is a new music teacher starting next term and I will make the effort to use some of the concepts mentioned above by being myself, leveling out my desires to affiliate and make my extrovert manner more conscious and use it to my best ability. I can give her my email address and phone number whenever she has questions or just wants to build a good working relationship. 
We all need good working relationships.



'Keeeep Blogging'