I don't have the time to follow the dialogue completely. However, i'm
always keen on paradigm's and conflict and paradoxes.
As you probably know, a new paradigm doesn't alter the data, the facts,
the symptoms. It will also contain the 'old' or previous theory (for
instance: quantum physics didn't replace classical physics). But ... it
must explain some troublesome problems better (for instance in physics:
the photo electric effect or the UV-catastrophe, which wasn't a real
disaster, except at that time for the prevailing theory).
The inner conflict, the paradox, between competition and collaboration is
such a troublesome problem. On the one hand we know that competition is
good as it promotes innovation, change and can be FUN (especially as
you're still able to defeat your son at a game of table football (soccer))
. On the other we know that collaboration is good as we all gain from
win/win situations, from complementing talents and it is FUN also (as in
learning from each other). So we see complex situations of competing and
collaboration.
Well ... this nagging problems has been solved simply by putting
cooperating and competing on two separate dimensions, not one. Just as a
wave might seem to behave like a particle and vice versa: in the same way
we can at the same time seem to cooperate and seem to compete.
This means that one can either compete or not AND cooperate or not. This
gives four situations:
1. low competition and low cooperation
2. low competition and high cooperation
3. high competition and low cooperation
4. high competition and high cooperation
The situations 2 and 3 are the "classical" ones. The either-or paradigm.
You're either a particle or a wave; competing or collaborating. The
situation one is the simplest state, very common as i do not cooperate,
nor compete with most of you. As long as we do not interact: knowbody (!
pun, no error) worries about my character. And the situation 4 is only
troublesome when seen from position 2 or 3.
Depending on the the players, the rules, the prizes, the environment, the
values, the starting positions, the direction of the movement, any of the
four situation may result. However: i suspect that on the long run we tend
to end up in the high competition, high cooperation situation. As this is
the most complex one and evolution 'forces' us into ever complexer
situations. That might be the way nature not only 'solved' photosynthesis
but also the development of our brain: let competition and cooperating
compete together (!) and the most complex pattern will evolve. Maybe a bit
far-out, this last remark, but a good starting point for a feasibility
study.
So we will seem to be somewhat ambiguous: now cooperating, then competing,
then cooperating again. And only those players will remain that are
capable of handling complex, paradoxical situation of conflict. Those who
are able to balance between winning, loosing, sharing and resolving
(Scott: this are a nice English words: solving and resolving, like search
and research. Did you know that in Dutch we only have 'to solve'
(oplossen) and 'to search' (zoeken). We had to import the word Research;
so we'll also have to borrow 'Resolution' also).
We will become able not only to manage conflict itself, but also the
conflict of seemingly conflicting behavior. Like being punished by rewards
or rewarded by punishment.
Scott Simmerman wrote:
> June Main in LO13964, in continuing the thread, said:
>
> >Would be neat to have this kind of collaboration spread on a university
> >level. . . and everywhere . . . intrinsically motivated . . . need more
> >involved in this paradigm shift.
and:
> An interesting thought. Collaboration is a huge issue in our educational
> process and one that all of us need to address in whatever way we can.
snip
> So many were worried about whether the others would "do their share."
> Thus, the perceived possibility of competing and collaborating was
> stressful. And everything I know about stress is that it interferes with
> learning much more than it energizes it.
snip
> But it is a real problem for students making the transition
> from schools to the workplace.
For WHAT (or who's) fun of it?
Jan Lelie
--Drs J.C. Lelie CPIM janlelie@pop.pi.net (J.C. Lelie) @date@ @time@ CREATECH/LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development - + (31) 70 3243475 Fax: idem or + (31) 40 2443225
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>