3b theories relating to networks

Before my investigation in to networks, I really could not imagine that there are so many theories and arguments on the subject. Networking has many more levels to what I initially expected; maybe I am not networking with full potential in that case??

“Equivalent retaliation”, or “tit for tat” (Axelrod 1984) where a subject using this strategy will initially cooperate, then respond to an opponent's previous action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the subject t is cooperative. If not, the subject will not.

“This strategy is dependent on four conditions, which have allowed it to become the most successful strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma:

1. Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
2. If provoked, the agent will retaliate
3. The agent is quick to forgive
4. The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat )

This game theory, in relation to cooperation I feel that I am naturally too trusting in some cases. I don’t like the thought of doing something to aid someone else with the direct initiation being…what will they do for me??

Hofstadter has a concept of super-rationality of which I think I fall into preference of  doing…having both parties interest at heart, carefully vetting future parties to work with, trusting the other to grow without the ‘one eye on the other’ scenario going on.

I am aware in my industry due to the high levels of competition and raging confidence levels (all be it not from me all of the time) people are out for themselves and with self -expansion at the heart of all actions. I have seen this too many times where I have helped others with work; yet getting one favour in return has been like bleeding a stone with the external party avoiding reciprocation. Being in the dance industry maybe as the competition is so fierce this doesn’t always happen like ‘tit for tat’. I’m not too sure if, friend or not, we could recommend a person for potential work, based on our judgement…could this discredit me? Is that selfish or also helping the person avoid disappointment and rejection whilst saving my own reputation if you like?

Like I have mentioned before, to give is to receive. With the blogs, I am aware that perhaps, due to my lack of cooperation to others I do not receive as much interaction. People will be more willing to interact if we gain the trust, build the conversation and reciprocate a good doing (commenting) yet this doesn’t always happen.

As long as you are aware of this, as I am now, this can be ok….maybe to some extent I have to become a little more ruthless too, in order to survive in this world?

I can take this on board and take in to consideration sometimes as often things can become easier in a group; two heads are better than one as the saying goes!

Affiliation is a rather interesting concept…some people work well with a compact network with smaller numbers, whilst others like to know all and everyone to have a sense of success. It does show that different people require the different levels of the association to feel successful.

I think on a social level the benefits of a healthy support network is huge…it is in the nature of people to have this hunger for ‘membership’ (a need to be wanted with a desire to ‘need’) I’m not too sure that affiliation on such a large scale is necessarily important in the professional networking.

Quality or quantity? Some individuals have an instinctive ‘need’ to be one of many…to have strength in numbers. Does this mean they get more out their networks than that of a small group? Maybe the larger the network relates back to the ‘spreading yourself too thinly’ to extract the best from the contacts? Where to them, the numbers/mass of relationships is more important than the strength of relationships?

I like the way within reader three that networks grow sideways and upwards. Sideways for me in experience offer the support and teaching of new elements of the practice (of which I share also with others) from the ‘above’ we take jobs and opportunities and inspiration. The latter is probably in many cases a relationship through convenience.) I feel that the sideways connections are a stronger bonded relationship where perhaps the ‘above’ are surface relationships with a little less genuineness behind actions. Is there a certain level or demand from upward connections, to sell yourself, somewhat unnaturally to an extent to increase the chances of a step up in the career levels? Do we have to ‘pretend’ and give extra air of confidence and play on the person they are seeking? A possible unstable internal place to be.  I don’t think I’m a good player of such games. But then I am comfortable with my secure connections…maybe I need to become trusting a little more in order to branch out and try this way,  I can really see if quality or quantity is best. Also identify if there are genuine out there who will be ‘’a network of support that will help us when we are in need” (crisp and turner 2007 pp266 found in reader)

I do admire those who strive for the numbers… it looks good for them, a boost when they see the amount of professional they may have as friends on Facebook!!?? I’m not too sure how many would actually be secure enough to fall on for such career advancements without the want/gain in return.

I n dance, again I think the human perceptions and personality traits help to guide us to trust. When you are working on tour day in day out/ living with the people you become understanding of those who can be in you more social and close structure of support and those who you would probably not connect with (either through clash in personality and ideals or lines of enquiry in the field/ nothing in common, etc.) you can adapt your presence and being to suit the person and situation….it is a method of survival. It is important to have a strong woven section of the network that you call upon in these desperate times (i.e. for the ‘down time’ you have being away from our personal networks)

Social constructionism.                  We do not create meaning…we construct meaning.

This section took a little to get to grips with yet I’m sure I can relate it to the thought that to notice you have an experience in order to turn the situation in to knowledge through reflection. (?)

The objective subjective view of Humphrey 1993, states that things were here and existed before we were around and able to learn; so therefore we did not create we constructed knowledge around such things. Constructionism brings the objective (things in existence) and subjectivism (our understanding of the ‘things in existence) together.

With reference to reflection (as the course is opening me to think of everything deeper and more than once) I think to reflect and create your own view or opinion is constructionism, where you see the idea with personal experience in mind. I am now curious…before when I have judged a sit where the trust seems false, maybe resulting in a lowering of self-integrity in order to cooperate, this is ‘me’ influencing my observations with the negativity that I have had from a past experience in such field of connectivity. I think what if? what if I look at this type of network or relationship as being positive will it make me more inclined to develop and continue to expand network(play the game) , even if I do not believe faithful intentions are at heart. Will I progress further, is that a major fault I have been carrying around…il try again?

Connectives

Achieving knowledge and connections have advanced with technology. i.e. web 2.0 and the internet, this has advanced the search through books. It is so accessible now, as the search engines provide the short cut for convenience. But even with the best knowledge close to hand, it takes the looking and applying it for it to become of use to the person.

I do think this is great (even as a technophobe) as many a time I have had little time but still successfully been informed by searching the web…but I’m still a fighter for personal/one to one interaction, where knowledge can be shared with the added bonus of person experience/empathy and sense of support thrown in for a richer over view. These connections in our networks (if used in such way) prove to be an extensive source where you can get ‘what you want’ from them. Not just a beginning point from where you beg borrow steal info to excel your career, it can be a more subtle connection/ yet more stable place to be within the web of relationships.

Communities of practice: Being at ease and somehow unaware that I am actual networking, (possibly as I’m not doing the interaction for a direct gain/aim) I find is a great way to expand my knowledge and learn. Being in a ‘community’ of fellow practitioners who share the same ideals or passion, and vision, where strong bonds are made, giving you a sense of belonging and working on the same vibe as others. I didn’t realise it but I have picked up many contacts from low key affairs, like just having a coffee after a dance class with others there. It is a nice way to extend conversations and impart thoughts and no matter where you see yourself in the hierarchy y you ( I) can always feel I bring something to the time we spend. (In BAPP we often chat for hour or so after sessions, sharing experience and new found influences etc.)  This gives me confidence in my work my lines of enquiry and overall what ‘we’ are doing in our practice.

I am happy to understand that I don’t have to disregard the more casual/ social ways of networking and I don’t not have to convince myself anymore that I was networking, when ‘just’ going for a coffee and a chat. ‘Every little helps’, and is definitely with me. I know I may have a smaller connection with hierarchy but that will develop with practicing the ways of networking and opening up to letting go of past negativity and trust issues I have had as ‘baggage’. The quality at the moment is working better than I can see quantity of relationships doing so. I will see if I can expand the number of relationships further yet with keeping in the quality there!