I think the example given
with the rope and marbles from the first article is very interesting. I feel
like we have seen this “finders-keepers” situation since we all were young
children. In fact, it happens even today as we are older. Just the other day, I
was walking around my friend’s house and my friend found a bracelet. It wasn’t
their mothers or her younger sisters, but the second the younger sister said
she wanted it, the older sister said she found it so she got to keep it. This
is just one of many daily examples that happens every day between siblings.
This instance also goes back to being a good citizen. Knowing it was not hers,
she still went ahead and kept the bracelet because she wanted to keep it.
Instead, she could have called a few folks who had been in their house for the
past few days, as it could have been a very important bracelet to the person
who lost it. I think that the article made a very good point by stating that
more often than not, choose to ignore the sharing button to make circumstances
fair. I think especially in an economy like ours, there is less incentive for
one to want to share because this country is based on the idea of making it rich-
the land of opportunity and success. It is encouraged for individuals to strive
and work harder to make greater profits for themselves rather than everyone
living in a fair country with equal amounts of money and labor.
However, there are still
instances where cooperation leads to sharing. This happens all the time in the
classroom between students and their class notes. During exam time many
students get nervous and start to second guess their notes. Therefore, a lot of
students collaborate with one another because they both have done the same
amount of note taking just possibly in different styles. Thus, one may have
picked up on something another classmate had not. This is why during exam time,
many students will work together and share their notes and cooperate with one
another to be able to collectively have the best notes compiled together to
study. However in many cases students don’t always include certain students in
this because they know that they have not put in as much effort as everyone
else (not going to class as much, not taking good notes, etc…) Many factors
come into play with situations like this. Unfortunately, a problem with this
now becomes one of judgement. To one person it may seem as if they are putting
in all their effort where another student may see it as no effort as all. Who
gets to decide if this system is fair or not? In addition, this can be applied
to a bad habit. One may have a bad habit of not writing everything down but
remembering it in their mind , thus, what may look like less effort to another
because of blank pages may be because they are better at explaining it then
writing it down. They can still contribute the same amount of information but
in this case in a different way.
It seems to me the situation with siblings is different than with other kids. The siblings have an ongoing relationship and so many experiences condition that. With other kids, it may be the context of the relationship is more limited. My interpretation of that article is that in such a limited context, if joint production is necessary to get the prize, then sharing will occur. The notes example may fit that, if nobody has a complete set of notes and if everybody contributes something.
ReplyDeleteWhat you say is a bit funny to me because in my mental model there is a study group that shares face to face how to solve a problem. They might then argue about what makes for a good solution. I hadn't thought before that the notes themselves would matter that much.
Your discussion about siblings is really interesting. It appeared to me that the cooperative activity from people who formally did not know each other may make them more aware and interested in the other person, which would then make them more likely to cooperate effectively and share equitably. In the example in my blog post, one of the reasons students who were working for a shared grade failed to cooperate was that they did not need to work with the other person closely in the cooperative behavior, so did not internalize their own self-interested behavior into that of the group’s. In this light, the siblings’ behavior may be seen as surprising, since siblings often work together.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the professor noted that there was a lot of familiarity between the siblings. What about increased familiarity and history would make a cooperative action go from one where people feel compelled to share equally to one where there is a “finder’s keepers” mentality, assuming both children cooperated to find the treasure? Perhaps, in ongoing relationships, particularly among older and younger siblings, there develops a type of “superiority-inferiority” relationship. This may alter the way siblings view the need to share from one of equality to one of inequality. This may make both parties not want to share equally, because they feel they deserve the treasure and that it is not fair to have the other sibling hog it. Perhaps, this type of relationship may be studied in order to explain a lot of the inequality present historically. For example, lords in feudal times did not see any injustice in having their peasants pay taxes to the king, but they exempted themselves from the practice. There superior self-view in relation to their peasants may have altered the way in which they learned to share the burden (and rewards of peasants labor).
Additionally, their inability to terminate their working relationship if they are unhappy with the outcome of sharing may also help perpetuate unequal sharing, because there are not repercussions. While a parent may tell the kids to share, the kids are not able to choose to stop working with each other in order to find people who share more equally. Thus, they continually cooperate on some level, and may try to keep what they can from the cooperative relationship. Thus, it may be learned a learned behavior to share unfairly in unequal relationships or where there is not an option to “leave the tribe” to find trading partners who are more fair.
As a side note, I think it may also be more difficult to share a single item, particularly for children. The fact that the object cannot be divided may also contribute to them both wanting the bracelet for themselves.
I definitely feel like the situation between two kids that are strangers to one another is much different than two siblings. For one, I remember how selfish I was when it wasn't my sister that I was sharing with, and then I remember how much more selfish I was when it was my sister who I was supposed to share with. I think with siblings there is a certain competitive sprit that goes into the decision making of whether to share or not. What I mean is, when I was younger when I had something that my sister wanted or she had something that I wanted we would kind of rub it in each others face. With someone that you don't know there could be benefit coming from sharing a toy with this person, because maybe they will share what they have in return, or you may share with them simply to gain their friendship. In any case, I think your point about America becoming ever more selfish is very valid, and a lot of people base life off of the assets they obtain.
ReplyDeleteYour take on cooperation works in situations where a class is curved and the students who shares all benefit from collaborating with their notes. Consequently, individuals who have all the notes are hurt somewhat because the students who didn't go to class have somewhat of an unfair advantage. Think of a person who goes to class for half of the lectures and still gets a higher grade. However, life is rough and unfair therefore all is fair game.
ReplyDelete