[分享]Cooperation and Competition

ggxinxinUID: 161010

http://www.beyondintractability. ... 1-cooperation1.html

Introduction: Morton Deutsch is one of the founding fathers of conflict research. Here he describes his early work in cooperation and competition.

Cooperation and Competition
Morton Deutsch
E.L. Thorndike Professor and Director Emeritus of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Teachers College, Columbia University

I developed a theory of the effects of cooperation and competition upon what would happen in the interactions within the group. And it was very interesting research. It came out very well from my point of view because there were striking differences in the two kinds of groups.

A cooperative group was established by having every group member out of five people, be constituted as a little class, and I was the teacher. And I was giving them problems to work on such as, human relations problems or intellectual puzzles. And the cooperative group was told that their grade would be determined by how well the group worked together, and by the group's performance on the task. And if your group is the best group of the five groups that were working on the same kinds of tasks. They would all receive an A and the next best, all a B. And the competitor groups were told they would be graded on how much they each contributed to the class. The person that contributes the most will get an A, the person that contributes the next most will get a B, C, and so on. So they had different reward systems, different distributive justice systems operating on them.

One was more egalitarian, one was more of a meritocracy, but one was cooperative, and one was competitive. It was clear that the cooperative groups worked well together. They communicated openly and honestly. They developed trusting relationships with one another. They had friendly relations with one another. They were interested in enhancing one another, enabling the other to do well, to do as well as they could. And when they had problems working together, they tended to work on them in a cooperative way. They tried to influence one another through persuasion.

On the other hand, in the competitive groups there was a breakdown of communication. People didn't want to give the other people any information that was useful. So there was relatively little communication and a lot of misunderstanding that developed. There was much more suspicion and a lack of trust in their relationship with one another. They were interested in enhancing their own power and their own resources, and minimizing the power and resources of the other. And they were less able to work in an effective way using the different talents that each person might of had. And as a result the cooperative groups actually performed better than the competitive groups. That was an important, interesting result. Then I became interested in what determines whether a group of people will move in a cooperative or competitive direction. I started using what I called "mixed motive situations." When people would be brought together, they would be brought together in what might be called a bargaining situation or a negotiation situation, where they have a mixture of motives to be cooperative and where it would be to their mutual benefits to out with a good agreement. But they had opposed interests in regard to the nature of the agreement that they might reach. So in that sense, there was a mixture of cooperative and competitive interests.

At that point, it became clear that in a sense, that a way of thinking about it was not only in terms of cooperation and competition, but what determines the way in which people will resolve conflicts or negotiate in a constructive way, rather than in a destructive way. So I did a whole set of studies with my students, a lot of research of course, not just by myself, many students were involved, and some of them are very prominent people now in the field, they will be a the conference in Boulder. Basically I came up with a simple idea. From the first study, I came up with the idea that a constructive way of managing conflicts, was to have people working cooperatively. On the other hand, the competitive situation, when they had conflicts, they didn't manage them well, they tended to be win-lose situations. So I came up with this first principle, which is important, that a constructive way of managing conflicts is like having a cooperative, creative group working on a problem, where the problem is the conflict. A destructive way of handling conflict is having people see that they're in a sort of win-lose struggle. Either I win or you win, either I get the top grade, or you get the top grade. And that leads to poor communication. It leads to poor outcomes of the conflict. So that's a very important principle.

ggxinxinUID: 161010

Liberal friendly quotes:

"Union gives strength."
-- Aesop, The Bundle of Sticks

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence

And from the other side...

"There are only two forces that unite men -- fear and interest."
-- Napoleon, Maxims

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 289

"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 516-17

ggxinxinUID: 161010

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/competitionsymbiosis.htm

Cooperation or Competition: Symbiosis vs. Evolution
According to the theory of evolution, all animal life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor. This process has supposedly occurred over an immense time and followed a step-by-step sequence from primitive to advanced forms of life. This would mean plant life first appeared and developed, followed much later by the appearance of animal life.

This idea is contradicted by the fossil record, which shows complex plant and animal life first appearing together in the geologic column during the Cambrian era.

Another obstacle to this theory is the interdependent relationships between living things, called symbiosis, in which completely different forms of life depend on each other to exist.

Darwin's theory of biological change was based on competition, or survival of the fittest, among the individuals making up a species. He admitted: "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection" (Darwin, p. 164).

Symbiotic relationships pose such a challenge to Darwin's theory, since they have animals and plants of different species cooperating for the benefit of both. For example, the dodo bird ate the seeds and leaves of a plant called calvaria major. The bird benefited from having the plant as a food source, but the plant benefited from the bird's gizzard scratching its seeds as they passed through its digestive system. When the bird became extinct, the plant nearly disappeared as well, because only if its seeds are scratched can they germinate and then grow into a mature plant.

This type of relationship is found in plants and animals. Evolutionists call it coadaptation, but they have yet to come up with a plausible explanation of how this relationship could have evolved in stages.

How can plants that need certain animals to survive have existed before those animals appeared in the first place? And how do animals that need other animals to survive arrive without the other creature already being there?

Symbiosis among lower forms of life

An example of beneficial symbiosis (called mutualism) is between algae and the fungus of lichens. While fungi provide vital protection and moisture to algae, the algae nourish the fungi with photosynthetic nutrients that keep them alive. As a biology textbook puts it: "Neither population could exist without the other, and hence the size of each is determined by that of the other" (Mary Clark, Contemporary Biology, 1973, p. 519).

So which came first, the alga or the fungus? Since neither could exist without the other, according to evolution for both to survive they had to evolve independently of each other, yet appear at exactly the same time and with precisely the right functions.

How could two completely different species evolve separately from distinct ancestors, yet depend on each other to exist? Frankly, the idea that thisrelationship evolved stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point.

Symbiosis among animals and plants

Another remarkable form of symbiosis is the relationship between bees and plants.

While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Clearly, both life forms depend on each other for their existence.

In addition, the bee has to carry out pollination in a precisely specific way for the process to work. If the bee visited other species of flowers at random, pollination could not occur, since the pollen of one species of flower does not fertilize another species. Somehow the bee knows to visit only one plant species at a time and at the right season.

Everything in this symbiotic relationship has to be timed exactly right for it to work-and we can be thankful it does. We can enjoy delicious fruits thanks largely to the untiring work of these tiny creatures that unknowingly carry out exactly the right type of pollination that enables many fruits to develop.

One of the most amazing examples of symbiosis is the relationship between the yucca plant and the yucca moth. Each is dependent on the other for its survival.

The yucca plant is physically incapable of pollinating itself to grow more seeds and perpetuate. The yucca moth (Pronuba) pollinates the yucca plant while laying its eggs inside the plant.

This is a three-step process. First the moth lands on the stamens (the male part of a flower, which produces pollen) of one of the yucca's flowers. It then makes a sticky ball of pollen that it carries underneath its neck by a special appendage unique to this moth species.

Second, the moth flies to another yucca flower, lands on the pistil (the female part, which grows the fruit and seed) and inserts one of its eggs inside the base of the pistil, the flower's ovary.

Third, the moth climbs the pistil and carefully places pollen from its ball inside the stigma's tube at its top, thus pollinating this part of the flower. The moth repeats the first and second steps of the process for one flower until each ovule has one moth egg in it and each stigma has had pollen put into it.

After hatching, the moth larvae feed on the seeds of the yucca. Remarkably, the moth carefully calibrates the number of its larvae growing inside each flower so the larvae will not consume all the seeds of the yucca-because if they ate all the seeds the yucca plants would stop reproducing, thus eventually dooming the yucca moths as well!

By pollinating the plant, the moth develops food (yucca seeds) for its larvae while ensuring the plant can continue its own kind as well.

But that's not all. The life cycle of the yucca moth is timed so the adult moths emerge in early summer-exactly when the yucca plants are in flower.
How could such a process as the yucca moth-plant symbiotic relationship have developed by gradual steps in an evolutionary process that proceeds by blind chance? What conceivable sequence of minor changes over thousands or millions of years could have possibly produced a perfect, mutually beneficial arrangement between plant and animal species?

Darwinism offers no answers. It is obvious that this remarkable relationship appeared abruptly or it never could have developed at all.

Symbiosis among animals

All animal life is equipped with some sort of survival instinct. Each knows what kind of food it needs and a means to avoid or defend itself against any predators. Yet, because of symbiotic relationships, some creatures allow other species, which normally would serve as a meal, to carry out cleaning and hygiene tasks without threat or harm. Scientists call this phenomenon "cleaning symbiosis."

It is common for large fish such as sharks, after consuming smaller fish, to have food remains and parasites imbedded around their teeth. Eventually these particles can produce disease or a dangerous build-up of matter that can hinder eating. But certain types of small fish exist that are designed to function as biological toothbrushes and can safely clean the teeth of the larger predators.

The cleaning fish fearlessly swim inside the open mouth of the larger fish and carefully eat the debris and parasites from the teeth. How can a predator fish restrain his instincts of getting a free meal by just closing his mouth and chewing, or avoid lashing out because of the irritating cleaning process? These actions go directly against the self-preservation instincts of both animals,yet they methodically carry out this sanitizing procedure. Some species even set up the equivalent of cleaning stations where the larger fish patiently wait for their turn while others ahead of them have their mouths cleaned.

A feathered crocodile cleaner

Such cleaning symbiosis is also found among a species of bird and a reptile. In Egypt the Egyptian plover hops right into the open mouth of the Nile crocodile to remove parasites. After the job is done, whether the crocodile is hungry or not the bird always leaves unscathed.

How could such diverse animals, which normally have a predator-victim relationship, become partners in a cleanup operation? If these procedures evolved, as evolutionists contend must have happened, how many birds would have been eaten alive before the crocodile decided it was in his interest to let one clean its mouth, then proceed to let it escape? In contrast, how many birds would have continued picking crocodile teeth when they saw some of their feathery cousins eaten alive by crocodiles? They certainly are instinctively aware that better and safer ways of getting a meal are available to them.

Such sophisticated relationships among diverse creatures show an underlying intelligent design and forethought at work. Symbiotic relationships are clearly both a great challenge to Darwinism and a great proof of a great Designer and Creator.

Thousands of years ago, while contemplating the wonders of nature around him, David exclaimed something that is as true today as it was then: "O LORD, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all" (Psalm 104:24).

ggxinxinUID: 161010

http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch15/prison.mhtml

Cooperation and Competition
In some situations, cooperation is dominant, whereas in others, competition is. Factors such as personalities of the individuals, volume of communication, size of the group, and reciprocity of actions determine whether individuals compete or cooperate in a social situation. These factors have been the focus of research conducted in laboratory game simulations of everyday situations. In the game theory approach, there are two kinds of games of interest to social psychologists: zero-sum and non-zero-sum. In zero-sum games, the total gains and losses equal zero. For example, in chess or tennis there is a winner and a loser. In non-zero-sum games, the sum of the payoffs is not zero. There is value in cooperation in non-zero-sum games, since, if both players cooperate, both can gain and no one has to lose. Two non-zero-sum games are described below.
     The trucking game was developed by Deutsch and Krauss (1960) to explore the bargaining behavior of individuals in a social situation. Each player owns a trucking company and tries to make a shipment as quickly as possible. Each has a long route to the destination as well as a short route that converges into a one-lane road. In order to use the short-cut (and make "money") the players have to cooperate and take turns using the road. However, each person also has control of a gate to prevent the other trucking company from using the road. The best strategy is to cooperate, and yet the researchers found that when the players had a weapon (the gate), the majority of the time was spent competing and threatening the other.
     In the prisoner's dilemma, two prisoners are isolated and each is accused of a crime. If neither prisoner confesses, each receives a light sentence of 1 year of imprisonment; if both confess, each receives a heavy sentence of 10 years. If one confesses but the other does not, the one who confesses is given a very light sentence of 3 months and the other receives a very heavy sentence of 20 years. There is an advantage for both prisoners in cooperating and remaining silent, thereby guaranteeing both a relatively light sentence; but, over a series of trials, personal gain favors competition: by confessing and hoping the other person does not, one of the two might obtain the lightest possible sentence. Typically, subjects also show competition in this game.
     These games illustrate the factors that determine whether an individual competes or cooperates. Some research suggests that Americans are especially competitive, and that this characteristic is learned during childhood (Werner, 1979). There are personality differences, with some people always competing, some always cooperating, and some following the other person's lead (they begin by cooperating, but will compete if the other person does). Communication is also an important factor. Wichman (1970) found that when there was no communication between individuals in the prisoner's dilemma, about 40 percent of the responses were cooperative, but if verbal communication were allowed, the cooperation level increased to around 70 percent. The size of the group also makes a difference. When the prisoner's dilemma was modified so groups could play, researchers found that as the size of group increased, cooperation decreased (Komorita & Lapworth, 1982). Reciprocity also plays a role, and many people will go along with whatever strategy another person begins. Cooperation and competition are important forces in today's world and social psychologists are attempting to understand how groups, and even nations, can learn to increase cooperation.

HAHAHAUID: 162566

楼主辛苦了，
我一路看下来，@@@,有点晕，现在看到大片大片的英，就@@@

菩树UID: 164101

valuable information.
thanks.

dezhiUID: 156141

UP