Collaboration: Tit for Tat
One part of collaboration (not the only one) is trusting your co-conspirators. A classic puzzle that explores this is a game called the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Imagine that you and a partner have been caught committing a crime. There's not enough evidence to convict either of you of a major offense, so if you both stick to your alibis, you will both get a light sentence (say, six months). If you rat out your partner, and he says nothing, you will go free, and he will get ten years; vice versa if he rats you out. (If you rat each other out, you both go to jail for five years). It's possible to work together in this situation (by not betraying your partner), but it's more likely that you won't collaborate. It looks like a better deal for you to betray your partner, no matter what he does, because you will get less jail time.
That's an interesting game, and a good thing to remember if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law. There's a slightly more complicated version, however, that's more relevant to life on the outside: the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (IPD). The original game is a one-off: you and your partner play a single round, making a single choice to cheat or not. In the iterated version, you play over and over again, which gives you the chance to punish or reward your partner's past behavior. You have a chance of establishing a relationship and consequences. So what do you do now, cheat or play fair?
In his 1984 book, The Evolution of Cooperation, Robert Axelrod described one winning answer to that question. Axelrod launched a contest in which people entered computer programs that played IPD against each other. Each program played the part of a single prisoner in the dilemma. Mathematical psychologist Anatol Rapoport submitted a program with four lines of code that won the contest. He called it Tit-for-Tat, and its strategy was this: start out playing fair, and then do whatever your partner did last time.
Axelrod described Tit-for-Tat's success as follows:
- Be nice. Start out by collaborating with your partner. Tit-for-Tat's first move is always to play fair.
- Be strict. Don't reward your partner's bad behavior. If your partner cheats you, retaliate on the next turn.
- Be forgiving. If your partner later decides to collaborate, don't hold a grudge: play fair again.
- Don't be envious. Don't try to outscore your partner.
The flaw in this winning strategy is the danger of the retaliatory spiral. This is the stuff of wars and feuds. The solution is to inject a bit of random kindness into the mix. This is enough to prevent the death-trap.
Another set of 'rules' for negotiation and collaboration underscore this tough fairness. In collaboration, one works on a project and the relationship with fellow collaborators. In the best collaboration scenarios, one places a high value on both the relationship and the project. When one values the project more than the relationship, one becomes domineering and argumentative. When one values the relationship more than the project, one tends to over-accommodate the other's wishes. When one values neither the project nor the relationship, resignation and apathy result.
Collaboration = high value relationship + high value project
Domination = low value relationship + high value project
Accommodation = high value relationship + low value project
Resignation = low value relationship + low value project
Does this help explain past experiences you have had in collaboration and negotiation? Can you see patterns in your own or other's behavior? How can you work with someone you dislike or disagree with? Should we bother? What is the value in negotiation and collaboration?
I was afraid that the blog exercise would be really boring, but I found it very interesting and entertaining. :)
The article does help explain past experiences that I've had with collaborating for projects and negotiations. My group situations usually end up in collaboration or domination. I prefer collaboration, but sometimes if everybody isn't on the same page and others are slacking, it usually results in me having a low value perception of the "slackers." I try my best to make sure the project ends up successful in this scenario and it usually does with the collaboration of the participating team members or with overcompensation on my part. Even if I'm good friends with people I work with, I try not to let that influence my work ethic or let the partnership fall into the category of 'Accommodation."
The Tit-for-Tat theory is interesting and it sounds like a good idea, but I don't play by those rules if in a group situation. This is because I would usually like to stay a step-ahead and if someone betrays me they will usually lose my trust all together. The only way that the Tit-for-Tat thinking would apply to me would just be with face value relationships, where we're not great friends and there's nothing major at stake. If you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you. If you're not... I'm not.
There are lots of people that I know or have seen that fall into these categories when operating in group settings. I think the descriptions (collaboration, domination, accommodation, resignation) are so general and straight forward that it’s easy to see people fit into them. ‘Resignation’ is a big category that people fall into, even today in all of my classes. There are those that just don’t care.
Working with difficult people, like those that fit into the resignation category can be complicated. Working with people you don’t like can be even more complicated. However, having a different point of view or way of thinking that you might not understand or agree with will help put the task more into perspective. It can also help you both learn, supposing that neither of you are equally stubborn. I think sometimes, working with someone you don’t get along with will help you and your project values grow.
Value in collaboration and negotiation is subjective. I think the level of values that a person bases things on and lives by are that single person’s idea of values. My high value in relationships and projects could be someone else’s low value and vise-versa. However, a value that everybody takes from the collaboration or negotiation is experience of value, no matter how high or low.
Posted by Jacqueline Rojanatavorn on November 02, 2008 at 12:17 PM EST #
This blog excercise is hardly what I expected. I anticipated the article to be about a certain piece of design as opposed to focusing on something that relates to design, but not in an exclusive way.
The article certainly conveys past experiences I have had when collaborating in group projects. I feel I can relate with the accommodation aspect the most. I find myself to be a people pleaser. At times I find myself trying to please everyone in the group even if their ideas aren't necessarily the best. This probably isn't the idea in that at times a less productive idea is turned in just so feelings aren't hurt. Instead a balance between relationship and project should be found. The article calls this high value for both the relationship and the project collaboration. Though friendships are important and feelings shouldn't be hurt when working together, the project should be completed to the best of the groups ability.
Regardless of which valuing is the best, I think it is certainly understood that resignation is the worst. With a complete lack of interest in the relationship and the project feelings will be hurt and production will be at a minimum. It is extremely frustrating working with individuals valuing neither the relationship or the project. Often times this results in doing something individually and just leaving the person who doesn't care out.
The tit-for-tat theory seems like a very systematic approach which takes all emotion out of the equation. With the fixed formula to repeat whatever the opponent just did, emotion doesn't play a role in deciding what to do. The decision has already been made. Some would say this systematic strategy is taking the easy way out, in that the decisions are predetermined by the opponent.
As far as the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma I would definitely stick to my alibi and take the 6th month sentence. I would hope that my partner would do the same. I have noticed throughout my life I put a lot of trust in people and at times this is a bad choice. Sometimes it leads to me to be extremely disappointed in the integrity of people. In this particular situation by trusting someone I could end up with ten years in prison.
As humans we have to do our best to collaborate and work with one another to get what is best for everyone as a whole. Being selfish may get us ahead at one point, but like the tit-for-tat theory the next time around we will get what we deserve.
Posted by Ethan Page on November 02, 2008 at 11:57 PM EST #
Yes, this does help explain past experiences I have had in collaboration and negotiation. It is easy for me to see a parallel in the Tit-for-Tat program and the way I interact with others. I’m sure most people can say the same as it basically is an example of human nature; we typically start out a relationship on friendly, neutral grounds and, from there, reciprocate the other person's actions and behaviors.
I feel that it is important to work with people you may dislike/disagree with, or to steal an (overused) line from the current election – to “reach across the aisle.” I feel it is in those collaborations that the best possible solution is achieved. I think the most successful way to approach these situations is with an open mind. If one brings any bias or preconception to the table, these collaborations usually follow the “resignation” or “domination” path.
One personal example that comes to mind is a group project I had in high school. The task was to design some kind of contraption to house an egg that would prevent it from breaking after being dropped from a third story window. Because the groups were assigned by the teacher, I was paired with a person I had frequently butted heads with in that class (I guess it was just my luck). We both had different approaches to solving problems and, by this point of the class, we were aware of how each other worked. He liked to improvise and just throw things together and see what worked. I, on the other hand, preferred a more thought-out, systematic approach. At first I expected to have to use “domination” tactics to get what I wanted in the assignment. In the end, both of us kept our emotions and preconceptions at bay and we were able to compromise and effectively collaborate (and our egg didn’t break!).
Being able to see things from another perspective is what makes negotiation and collaboration so valuable. In my example, I honestly feel that neither of us would have been able to design the end product on our own. In studio we are encouraged to have multiple ideas and solutions for a problem and I think the best way to come up with as many ideas as possible is to have multiple heads involved in the brainstorming.
Posted by Dustin Rhodes on November 03, 2008 at 03:07 PM EST #
Well if one of my friends and I were in trouble I would have a problem giving them up even if I knew they were going to talk. Also I would like to think that my friend my friend would be smart enough to know what not talking would be the best for both of us. Maybe every friendship should go through that to test their trust of one another. Just an Idea.
This experiment does show a common trend in how relationships work with pairs of people as well as groups. It seems that every project I have worked on it has been one of those four relationships. There is usually a person who tries to be the leader in the group but some times it they try to dominate the group and force everything to go their way but thats just through personal experience. Every once a group can function with little to no friction between the members.
I think when working with people you don't agree with or have a problem with you should focus on the project because all you have to do is put up with them for the project and then you're done. I have noticed when I am in a group I do like to try to keep people on task but I think for the most part people should listen to the rest of the group and not just dismiss ideas right away. Which brings me to collaboration. Groups cannot function without collaboration. No body wants to be a part of a group where their voice isn't hear. If one person is running the group then it's impossible to be sure that you have the best solution. Also in a group there must be compromise. When working in a group people need to be willing to change their ideas because some one else may have a better innovation that addresses the problem. Group work is not just about one persons idea but how the individuals in the group combine their ideas to create a single final project.
Posted by Caleb Plunkey on November 03, 2008 at 04:19 PM EST #
This article helps to explain past experiences that I have had in collaboration and negotiation. When participating in group projects people’s motives become apparent. In many situations I have experienced working with people who participate in the ways of collaboration, domination, accommodation and resignation. The type of project and the people that make up the group determine the person’s attitude towards a project and therefore which one of these four groups they fall into. Personally, in group situations I try to place a high value on the relationships within my group and the project. I strive to collaborate in group situations, but this is not always easy. There are situations where I would tend to accommodate and place a higher value on the relationship and low value on the assignment. For me it all depends on the type of project I am working on. If it is in an area that I am interested in or excel at I might take on the role of domination. If it is in an area that I am not interested in or good at, but my group members are I would accommodate. The statement that these attitudes do exist is something that I can relate to because I have experienced them personally and seen others in these roles.
Working with people you dislike or disagree with is something very challenging. I f I am in a group situation where I experience this I try to recognize where they are coming from. In order to try to better understand their opinion I recognize that they have experienced different things than I have and so they will see things differently. If the other person is able to respect me then I would not have a problem working with someone that I disliked.
In the case of the jail sentence I would probably stick to my alibi. I would hope that my partner valued our friendship enough to do the same. I would feel guilty for not being loyal if I told on him and did not receive any punishment. If I did not betraying him I would collaborate by serving some time for the crime and still keeping my loyalty to him.
There is a lot of value in negotiation and collaboration. Though it is sometimes difficult we must recognize other’s ideas and be willing to work with them in order to come to the final solution.
Posted by Emily Parker on November 03, 2008 at 04:56 PM EST #
I have experienced all four types of collaboration at some point. I remember doing a class project with one student and having to experience a resignation type collaboration. My partner, who I didn't know, seem to not care about contributing to the project. It was a difficult situation because I had to do all the work and we both got the same grade, even though he didn't do his part. I've experienced an accomadation collaboration where I let my partner use their ideas instead of standing up and employing my ideas. Ultimately, I think a collaboration where there is a high value in relationship and project is a balanced situation. I think more is done and more is taken from the experience. The collaboration is equal. In this collaboration the group is opened minded and a variety of ideas and compromising occurs, resulting in a satisfying product. I believe that it is important to see a problem from different perspectives because there is not always just one outcome for a certain situation.
Working with someone that you dislike or disagree with can be difficult, but I believe that it's not all bad. When two or more people have different ways of coming to a conclusion, the outcomes are endless. The variety of ideas helps the group learn to compromise, and therefore appreciate other views and not be narrowed minded. Another positive is that that person could think of something you would have not thought about, which leads you to unexpected learning experiences through out the process of coming to a solution.
The value in negotation and collaboration is endless on different levels. Levels such as diversity, open mindedness, compromise, respect and more. With negotation and collaboration it becomes more possible to reach a different level than initally because you are dealing with others with different ideas and view points. In this way, you reach the level that make your product or solution its best.
Posted by Briana Outlaw on November 03, 2008 at 05:15 PM EST #
After reading the above blog, i realized how much i actually had in common with the aforementioned theories. Many of the rules or ideas expressed correlated with my past experiences in Design and in collaborating on work projects. It gave me a better understanding of the ways that my peers reacted when i would make a decision or come up with an idea, and vice versa. I definitely see a repetition in reactions of teammates, especially when the choice you make is viewed as a mistake or misstep. Humans in general jump at the chance to put someone down for a mistake, in fact people are usually remembered more for failures rather than on accomplishments. This is evidence that people are inherently bad in thought. This carries on into the question of whether or not you would like to work with someone you dislike- the person is already on foul terms with you, and the feeling is exponentially increased when you or they make a mistake, it is just compounding against what you already feel for them. But this is not saying you should not work with them, because when there is a negative side there is also the positive- working together to create a positive result will in the end help your relationship become stronger too. The idea of collaboration and negotiation is a well founded one, that is almost always a good thing to try.
As far as the prisoner idea, i must admit that there is a good chance i would turn in my friend to try and get off, this of course depending on how good this friend is and the situation itself, you can never tell what you would do unless you were in the situation.
I do see many problems with the ideas set about in the tit-for-tat theory. Mainly i don't understand how if both parties involved are participating in the theory how does anything ever get accomplished? How can something ever change if your doing the exact same thing your partner is doing? it just doesn't make sense.
Overall, collaboration of projects might have some negative outcomes but overall you cannot get another more productive grouping- working together will always provide the most ideas and solutions for any problem.
Posted by Spencer Inions on November 04, 2008 at 12:38 AM EST #
The whole idea of tit-for-tat really catches my interest, not only because of it's simplistic genius, but because of it's boarder-line recklessness. It's been my experience that people tend to start out with good intentions, and will, for whatever reason, wish to exact revenge on those who prevent those intentions. The obvious downside to this scenario is the endless spiral of revenge that has been present throughout quarreling nations since the beginning of time.
This system is somewhat relevant to my past experiences with conflict, but obviously, individuals are hardly ever as organized in their methods of countering an opposition.
Sometimes it is necessary to collaborate with those who do not hold the same beliefs as you in order to achieve a goal. I find that the best way to work together is to focus on the task at hand and leave any unrelated issues at the door. You can achieve more with a group of people than you can with an individual any day.
In the event that a discrepancy enters a group that is in relation to the task at hand, compromise should be implemented. John Nash theorized that the best way for a group to prosper was to take the action that most benefits both the individual and the group as a whole. This way the team succeeds and everyone feels rewarded.
PS--I voted
Posted by Justin Thornhill Phillips on November 05, 2008 at 01:23 AM EST #
The tit-for-tat method really seems to relate to past experiences for me. For me, it seems that almost every group project seems to follow these "rules". At first, the group is very charismatic, ready to get the project done and work together. (high value project and relationship) However, as time moves forwards, relationships seem to weaken, as some group members do not show up for meetings or do their required assignments. (low value relationships, low value projectIn turn, other members retaliate. (low value relationships, high value project). As the article states, if this continues, the project spirals downward into failure. ( However, if members put aside their grudges and value the project, the project can turn out to be a success, with or without positive relationships. But also, there are those who spend much of their time socializing and not any time on the project. (high value relationship, low value project)
Obviously, the best way to go is having a high value for both the relationships and the project. This is a hard balance to keep however. I tend to agree with Justin above, when he states that the best or safest way to work is just to focus on the task at hand. It is important to have a positive relationship with team members, but not so positive that the project gets lost in the relationship.
This seems to be the way I work with group projects... not getting personal enough with group members to hang out with them outside of the project, but still working together well enough to get the project done.
Posted by Shane Roepe on November 10, 2008 at 07:06 PM EST #