Competition, cooperation and their opposites

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I’ve been looking at this interesting diagram showing the two dimensions of social living: competition / power and cooperation / affiliation.  That is the idea for the scheme.  I’ve been trying to fill in blanks in the diagram.  “Cooperation” covers any kind of prosocial or altruistic behaviour.

 

 

It has to line up properly with “unconditional love”.

 

 

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I think the two left hand sides line up, because unconditional harm is either done: 1) deliberately; or 2) through indifference.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

“sheeple” lines up with generosity.  Perhaps “sheeple” should be replaced with “self-effacing”, which is more in the same category of meaning (interpersonal relations) as the other three.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Bottom left hand should be “passive-aggression / resentment”, and bottom right hand should be “self-effacing altruism”.

[daughterofkarlParticipant]

Hello, Simon Paynton,

I’m glad you’re rethinking your use of “sheeple” in the bottom right of your chart.  Referring to people who fall into the category of being both cooperative and passive as “sheeple” is…well, sort of passive-aggressive, to be honest, and seems to betray a distinct bias.   Nowhere else is the terminology you use so obviously pejorative and non-objective.  Self-effacing is probably more what you mean, yes?  It isn’t your position that the only positive form of cooperation/affiliation is that which is both cooperative and competitive, right?     Or am I misunderstanding what it is you are trying to convey with the chart.  I am reading it as a tool for quantifying a range of human behaviors/responses on a continuum.  Is that correct?    Perhaps it is the terminology you are using.   If you are striving to create a chart that indicates opposing forces, it might be more accurate and objective to say the opposite quality to “passive” is “active,” not “competitive.”  The opposite quality to “submission” is “assertion.” (Or you could go with “domination,” but that is a pretty loaded term as well.)   My point is that, if you are seeking to create a tool that can be used to, more or less, objectively quantify human behavior/responses in social environments along a continuum, you might want to consider using terminology that is less emotionally-weighted and value-laden.   Likewise, you might want to consider that the opposite quality to cooperation might more accurately be described as “isolation” rather than “defection?”

Or maybe I am just completely misreading the chart and your intent.   That’s been known to happen!  🙂

Cheers!

DOK

• This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by  daughterofkarl.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@daughterofkarl – the only two labels given originally were “competition/power” and “cooperation/affiliation” which correspond with “me first” and “you/we first”.  All the rest were blank, so I decided to try and fill them in.  You’re right, sheeple is the wrong word and out of keeping with the rest.

Whatever the rest says, what will be will be.  I’m just filling in the spaces and seeing what turns out.  I think it turns out to be a useful framework that ties into the axis of “unconditional love”.

What is generosity if not self-effacing?  And it’s useful for conceptualising narcissism.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

daughterofkarl wrote:

It isn’t your position that the only positive form of cooperation/affiliation is that which is both cooperative and competitive, right?

It’s more that fairness is a balance between “what I want” and “what you want”.

daughterofkarl wrote:

I am reading it as a tool for quantifying a range of human behaviors/responses on a continuum. Is that correct?

Yes, along two dimensions: “me concern” and “you concern”.

daughterofkarl wrote:

terminology

“Competition / cooperation” are standard terms and they express the essence of the situation in my opinion.  If you think about it, if one is “an army of one”, then competition is inevitable.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

daughterofkarl wrote:

terminology

Along with competition and power, this axis also covers straightforward self-interest, which, as you say, is less emotionally charged.  But competition and power belong on there too.

“fairness” – Michael Tomasello talks about two dimensions to morality, and these axes would correspond to those: altruism and fairness.

[ClearskyParticipant]

1. I’m Not OK, You’re OK
2. I’m Not OK, You’re Not OK
3. I’m OK, You’re Not OK
4. I’m OK, You’re OK

Book I’m OK – You’re OK is a 1967 book by Thomas Anthony Harris

1. On 4 possible life positions.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Clearsky wrote:

I’m OK – You’re OK

It’s a good framework that seems to work.

[ClearskyParticipant]

Yep I think if one can see that some things are non-zero sum games.

That sometimes I am OK, you are OK.  It can be a psychologically healthy way of perceiving the world.

Like the Nonzero foundation

frontpage

 

Or this Book by Robert Wright

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonzero%3A_The_Logic_of_Human_Destiny?wprov=sfla1

• This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by  Clearsky.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Thanks to @daughterofkarl and @clearsky for your helpful suggestions.  I feel this is the final version I want to use: “narcissism” lives in the top left quadrant very nicely.

[tom sarbeckParticipant]

 

Simon: I feel this is the final version

Hey, do you FEEL …, or do you think ….

• This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by  tom sarbeck.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

tom sarbeck wrote:

do you FEEL …, or do you think ….

Both?  One is a polite version of the other I guess.

[tom sarbeckParticipant]

 

Simon: One is a polite version of the other?

Two ways to learn: feeling and thinking. One more common in the arts; the other more common in the sciences.

For eons boys were more rewarded for thinking and girls more rewarded for feeling. Each was punished for doing the other.

That women have become majorities in law schools and medical schools portends important economic and societal changes.

The news tells of men who don’t want to share power.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by  tom sarbeck.

[Author]

Posts