[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration

[HENRY SHONERD]

Larry,
I confess that your post is somewhat opaque to me. However, I want to take a turn ASAP right away and because I doubt I could do justice to your analysis without a taking more time reading your post or writing by or about Tomasello. . However, I sense that your very analysis describes your efforts and mine to negotiate our “differences”, differences, as I say having to do with my background knowledge falling short, and not that our perspectives are in conflict. 

In any case, I would like to add to my take on negotiation and collaboration how and they are associated for me with diplomacy, especially between nation states. 

On a smaller scale, I am reminded of the ways in which conversational styles are gendered. Deborah Tannen has written several popular books on discourse, one of which (Gender and Discourse, 1994) finds that men and women tend to approach conversation in very different ways. An outstanding example of such differences is that men and women tend to interpret “interruptions” in conversation differently. Men tend to interpret them as power plays, women as expressions of solidarity. In effect, men tend to interpret someone talking “over” their turn as true interruptions, women as moving the conversation forward.

Henry
   

   


> On Apr 20, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Henry,
> The sense of (negotiate) I experience as having a different felt sense from the sense *arising* within (modulation). 
> Both imply intentionality but with differing degrees of instrumental intent.
>  
> Tomasello points to primates ability to use another conspecific  as a social implement/instrument but this is not the primordial *joint* (mutual) reciprocity which implies human motivation towards *care and concern* for the other and the desire to help the other (grasp) their *intent*.
>  
> Tomasello points to reciprocal 1st and 3rd aspects of developing perspective taking depending upon  first acquiring a sense of sharing the *same* phenomena. This 1st and 3rd perspectives are occurring *simultaneously.
> To be able to negotiate seems to imply negotiating *differences* which may be derivative from the prior developing joint (mutual) sense of experiencing the (same) phenomena prior to developing the capacity for negotiating differences.
>  
> How cognitive is joint mutual attention orienting to the *same* phenomena in contrast to the cognitive being more limited to possibly being  derivative as  this developing process of differentiating (perspective taking) from within a primordial *place* of mutually joint shared attention.??
>  
> This also brings in the question of reciprocal *recognition* implying a symmetrical relation in contrast to *recognition* as being more asymmetrical. 
> The general question of convergence within divergence (or) divergence within convergence.
> Tomasello seems to indicate that joint mutual attention is primordial and differences emerge within this prior matrix or mileau.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>  
> From: HENRY SHONERD <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
> Sent: April 20, 2016 8:44 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
>  
> An interesting aspect of the negotiation of meaning between children is the research that shows  that at a very early age children’s speech demonstrates their ability to modulate according to the age of the children they are communicating with. (I am pretty sure about this, though it has been a long time since I read about it.) Adults, of course, modulate their speech for children, but children of, say, six talk differently to children younger than themselves from  when they talk to older children. This shows early on a very sophisticated ability to judge perspective taking in conversation vis-a-vis perceived levels of development. 
> Henry
>  
> > On Apr 20, 2016, at 8:02 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > 
> > This shift of focus towards (grasping) phenomena but from within this shared (mutual) place in which the grasping movements HAVE  *meaning*. 
> > To highlight that Tomasello is using the term (collaboration) in relation to (problem solving) while using the term (cooperation) for the relation with (communication).
> > Is this (mode)  of perspective-taking that seems to be species specific originally always focusing first on the *same* (single) phenomena prior to becoming *differentiated* as aspects (of) this *prior* focusing on the *same* mutually shareable (and grasped) events.
> > 
> > I will add the centrality of Fonagy’s notion that this grasping encounter must be marked (modulated) through our shifting responses within this mutually shared *place* of engagement.
> > 
> > Michael, this is leading to a way to possibly transcend the assumed opposition of (subject) and (object) towards a different way of portraying inter/subjectivity.
> > For example, the need for aesthetic modes of *unity* or *harmony*  prior to the differentiating marking modulation of analytic differences.
> > The need for *normativity* prior to *freedom*.
> > The birds need for wind *resistance* in order for a bird’s *flying*.
> > I see similar ways of travelling in these examples all as exemplars of a deep movement that some call *spirit*.
> > 
> > In other words, as Hegel points out 
> > “Beauty hates the Understanding as Beauty orients towards *unity* and *harmony* while the Understanding dissects and kills phenomena.
> > 
> > Seems to be a *thread* or *rope* hear if we listen to this imaginal image of living *spirit* as intertwining relations each in the other.
> > 
> > 
> > Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> > 
> > From: Glassman, Michael
> > Sent: April 20, 2016 5:41 AM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
> > 
> > Hi Larry,
> > 
> > The picture that stays in my mind is the one of 24 month olds not only supporting and pushing each other but even grabbing adults to bring them along in their shared attentional perspective/motivation.  It made me think the most exciting collaborative moments for me is when I feel like the students are grabbing on to me and pulling me along.
> > 
> > Does this need to be part of our concept of collaboration.
> > 
> > Michael
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On Behalf Of Lplarry
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:54 AM
> > To: HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
> > 
> > I am returning to Tomasello and section 5 on (joint attention and perspective) on page 7 of the article Mike sent.
> > 
> > Tomasello found infants in their second year of life were more motivated than great apes to participate in (both) *collaborative* problem solving (and) *cooperative* communication.
> > 
> > Therefore both collaborative and cooperation are adverbial notions.
> > The reason for this difference is that human infants are biologically (adapted for) social inter/actions involving shared intentionality. At age 2 human infants already have special *skills* for creating with *other persons* joint goals, joint intentions, and joint attention AND also *special motivations* for helping and sharing with others.
> > The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis goes further to say:
> > “participation in inter/actions involving shared intentionality trans/forms human cognition in fundamental ways (modes).
> > First and most *fundamentally* this kind of participation creates the notion of perspectives (points of view).
> > 
> > I sense this repetition of these key points may focus our shared attention.
> > 
> > Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> > 
> > From: HENRY SHONERD
> > Sent: April 19, 2016 6:54 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
> > 
> > I want to add that I can hear Vera talking of negotiation in her teaching, mentoring and writing, then I thought to look in the index of her Creative Collaboration. There it was on page 242  under Negotiation: “by  children, of conflict, of differences, intimate partners and…” 
> > 
> >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:46 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Chris,
> >> “Negotiation” appeals to me as well. I associate it with the negotiation of meaning between people, as well as the negotiation of the of the environment in reaching an objective. Intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. 
> >> Henry
> >> 
> >>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Schuck <schuckthemonkey@gmail.com <mailto:schuckthemonkey@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if 
> >>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation."
> >>> 
> >>> That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning 
> >>> minimal differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for 
> >>> this extremely helpful synposis, Annalisa!
> >>> 
> >>> "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word 
> >>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial 
> >>> connotation....How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word 
> >>> than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration."
> >>> 
> >>> Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation 
> >>> that emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, 
> >>> specifically discursive/conversational process often required. So 
> >>> it's a great example for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe 
> >>> it's narrower? That is, negotiation is focused on the terms and 
> >>> conditions (also points of similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together.
> >>> through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the 
> >>> discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer 
> >>> together, whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of 
> >>> working together and need not include dialogue. This brings up 
> >>> another tricky concept that I didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement."
> >>> 
> >>> I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be 
> >>> obvious to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, 
> >>> nor does competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" 
> >>> could be an example of the latter).
> >>> 
> >>> Chris
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu <mailto:annalisa@unm.edu>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Hello esteemed XMCArs!
> >>>> 
> >>>> This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so 
> >>>> far up to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members'
> >>>> posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be 
> >>>> further collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating 
> >>>> question. :)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about 
> >>>> notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I 
> >>>> consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if 
> >>>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. 
> >>>> It isn't distressing, nor need it be a surrendering of identity, 
> >>>> even in a more hierarchical social structure. Also, cooperation can 
> >>>> be very ambitious, so I seem to have a 180 definition to Andy's 
> >>>> distinctions between the two words. In collaboration, there is a 
> >>>> community effort to complete something and it is more democratic in 
> >>>> nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to summarize, I don't 
> >>>> believe that for either cooperation or collaboration that conflict 
> >>>> is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can exist without conflict.
> >>>> 
> >>>> That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he 
> >>>> speaks of Downes' distinctions in reference to community :
> >>>> 
> >>>> "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is 
> >>>> cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so 
> >>>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while 
> >>>> collaboration involves actually creating a community.  Others I 
> >>>> think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while 
> >>>> cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action 
> >>>> towards a goal.  I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking."
> >>>> 
> >>>> I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my 
> >>>> conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial.
> >>>> 
> >>>> It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not 
> >>>> everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday 
> >>>> concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept!
> >>>> :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to 
> >>>> any collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as 
> >>>> Micheal points out.
> >>>> 
> >>>> But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when 
> >>>> considering marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must 
> >>>> be present in a marriage something called love and care, which is 
> >>>> joyful sharing. I imagine also, in the creation of a family there is 
> >>>> an ideal objective to a create a sense of continuity and community 
> >>>> of care for all members, and that is an ongoing collaboration.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration 
> >>>> around conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't 
> >>>> think marriage is something that is usually considered in reference 
> >>>> to conflict, though for many who are divorced or who fear repeating 
> >>>> a bad marriage, they seem to orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in 
> >>>> conflict. :/
> >>>> 
> >>>> Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, 
> >>>> because successful collaboration requires members who have 
> >>>> complimentary ways of thinking about or skill for doing things. 
> >>>> Sometimes having too many people who have expertise or skill in 
> >>>> identical domains creates competition, and competition not only 
> >>>> creates conflict, but also has the potential become violent. I say 
> >>>> that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of 
> >>>> collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that 
> >>>> there are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in 
> >>>> groups made up solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all 
> >>>> female, or mixed, or even
> >>>> LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse 
> >>>> manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still 
> >>>> being understood by all of us.
> >>>> 
> >>>> There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with 
> >>>> class or race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, 
> >>>> signifiers, histories, and so on.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and 
> >>>> little-c collaboration? How does creativity relate?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs 
> >>>> for collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied 
> >>>> internal work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify 
> >>>> until they were able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk.
> >>>> (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They 
> >>>> found that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each 
> >>>> member to speak, in other words no individual or individuals 
> >>>> dominated leaving others silent, those groups possessed the most 
> >>>> productivity, and also each member felt good about being in that 
> >>>> group. When they looked more closely to get to the bottom of all 
> >>>> that, it ended up that the only feature that really counted was 
> >>>> whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each member.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I have one word for this: Duh.
> >>>> 
> >>>> A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head 
> >>>> when it comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid 
> >>>> collaboration without any psychological safety?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is 
> >>>> there humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is 
> >>>> improvisation regarded as a site for discovery and imagination?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being 
> >>>> distributed doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned.
> >>>> For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a 
> >>>> highly hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study 
> >>>> of cultural practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval 
> >>>> ship is still distributed despite these organizational features.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Another example:  when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it 
> >>>> note and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in 
> >>>> solitude, from the time I search my fridge to learn what I've run 
> >>>> out of, in order to make my list, and how I bring the list with me 
> >>>> to the store as I search the aisles and then remember that I'd 
> >>>> forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, because I keep that in the 
> >>>> pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart.
> >>>> It's all distributed cognition.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's 
> >>>> previous posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see 
> >>>> cooperation as more about accommodation, rather than being conflict 
> >>>> free. That's what I meant by sacrifice to a cause, which could be 
> >>>> conflict aversion. I agree with Andy that suppressing conflict is 
> >>>> not good, but neither is being conflict averse, which feels to me to 
> >>>> be more "internal" than "external." Your mileage may vary.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word 
> >>>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. 
> >>>> I wonder if professional diplomats use any words for what we are 
> >>>> conceptually circumnavigating?
> >>>> 
> >>>> How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"?
> >>>> Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about 
> >>>> distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which 
> >>>> possesses a non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies 
> >>>> search, comparison, identification of differences and similarities, 
> >>>> these words provide opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or 
> >>>> testing, then negotiation and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed.
> >>>> 
> >>>> So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences 
> >>>> between shaken and stirred? :)
> >>>> 
> >>>> I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. 
> >>>> Thanks for that one, Vera.
> >>>> 
> >>>> In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to 
> >>>> cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something 
> >>>> inherently done without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or 
> >>>> more-experienced peer, but it does appear to be inherently necessary 
> >>>> for all of us to be successfully human.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and 
> >>>> collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of 
> >>>> individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of 
> >>>> dividual makes the case that some cultures have members who see 
> >>>> themselves closely tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," 
> >>>> if I might exercise Vera's nice coupling of words. So perhaps we 
> >>>> might not be too hasty about normalizing individualism as we 
> >>>> experience it, and pose it as a universal human trait.
> >>>> 
> >>>> It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human 
> >>>> phenomenon, since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum).
> >>>> I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :)
> >>>> 
> >>>> I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks 
> >>>> Mike), he is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion,"
> >>>> when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a 
> >>>> group can't be too obvious that they are working together because 
> >>>> they must wait for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new 
> >>>> turn in the flow of events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work 
> >>>> off to the side to experiment and solidify an idea before presenting 
> >>>> it to the group. That seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion."
> >>>> 
> >>>> Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly 
> >>>> influenced by the environment is also worth further discussion too, 
> >>>> as I don't believe that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a 
> >>>> non-environment or even a non-culture. There has to be a there 
> >>>> there. So the reference of "dwelling in the world" is also very delightful.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post.
> >>>> There are a lot of "C" words:
> >>>> ----------------
> >>>> -care
> >>>> -collaboration
> >>>> -collusion
> >>>> -commitment
> >>>> -community
> >>>> -competition
> >>>> -conflict
> >>>> -continuity
> >>>> -cooperation
> >>>> -creativity
> >>>> 
> >>>> but also some non-C words:
> >>>> ----------------
> >>>> -accommodation
> >>>> -ambitious
> >>>> -artifacts
> >>>> -attention
> >>>> -democratic
> >>>> -dignified interdependence
> >>>> -distributed cogniton
> >>>> -distributive
> >>>> -environment
> >>>> -integrative
> >>>> -love
> >>>> -marriage
> >>>> -meaning
> >>>> -negotiation
> >>>> -play
> >>>> -safety
> >>>> -sharing
> >>>> 
> >>>> Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": 
> >>>> C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon 
> >>>> the concept of collaboration.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) 
> >>>> thread and tapestry!
> >>>> 
> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Annalisa
> >>>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >