 |
| "A Collaboration Corneille and Molière" (1873) by Jean-Léon Gérôme |
180. Kahneman explains that he and Tversky "were quicker understanding each other than we were in understanding ourselves." He goes on to say that "The way the creative process works is that you first say something and later, sometimes years later, you understand what you said And in our case it was foreshortened. I would say something and Amos would understand it" (180). In other words, Kahneman and Tversky did not have a teacher/student relationship. It was not the case that one was the expert and the other was the learner. They were peers, and they taught each other through thoughtful, creative dialogue and meaningful feedback.
Not all small group discussions are this productive or rewarding, though. Why is it that some collaborations are mutually beneficial and others aren't? What are the key ingredients of a productive, intellectual collaboration? Is it mostly a matter of attitude? It is mostly a matter of having participants who have a similar level of knowledge and expertise? Does it help to have participants who are alike in their views or is it important to have participants who are unlike each other?
I think that some collaborations among other reasons are not as successful as the Kahneman and Tversky collaboration is that most people do not learn the same way. For one person they might be a visual learner and others can just hear about it and know exactly what the other person is talking about. I think some of the key ingredients would be willingness to have a conversation about this topic and probably most important having patience. In some cases it could be attitude as I said before a successful collaboration you have to have be willing to be a part of the collaboration. Having participants with similar knowledge and expertise could be helpful it is not absolutely necessary for a successful collaboration. It should not matter whether participants have similar views or backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteRiley Knickmeyer
Collaborations tend to be more successful when there are multiple ideas present. Individual attributes are amplified when in the presence of other attributes that stimulate one another, in the same way that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is better than the individual parts. Nobody that I know of eats raw jelly, but that doesn’t mean that jelly is pointless. However, what makes projects effective is the communication between each member. Being able to understand one another and jointly addressing problems with creative and adaptable solutions makes an effective collaboration. One person pulling the majority of the weight due to a lack of communication, common ground, or willingness to put in the effort, is not a collaboration, and thus would lead nowhere.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement here, however, I wanted to ask if you were talking about different ideas or different viewpoints on the same idea. I believe that Kahneman and Tversky were able to collaborate so effectively because they balanced each others viewpoints on the same ideas. Your second idea of understanding and communicating between pairs is also an excellent point.
DeleteI think respect plays a part in a successful collaboration. If you don't respect a person's ideas and skills you won't listen to them which can lead to problems in other areas such as communication.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it takes respect to see other's points of views openly. I also think that in order to have a productive intellectual discussion, the degree of knowledge from each person needs to be somewhat similar. However, I do not think that each point of view must be the same. In fact, I think a discussion with different beliefs can sometimes be more beneficial. Kahneman and Tversky had different views and knowledge when it came to psychology, but those differences (and their respect towards each other) helped them understand their work even better.
DeleteI think that in a small group, it is important to have people with different views, different interests, and even different levels of expertise. If they had all of this, and a common goal, they could achieve some great things. I think that with a diverse group, different people can bring different thoughts that others might never think of. Willingness to contribute is a must, and great collaboration.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that it is important to hold common ground in a friendship. With that being said, I do think that people today are unwilling to let down their pride and opinions long enough to open their mind to opposing viewpoints. This can be deadly to character development and personal growth. Closed-mindedness can also stunt the growth of many personal relationships that may be beneficial to both participating parties.
DeleteIn order for a collaboration to be mutually beneficial, I believe, both parties must enter with an open mind to both new ideas and criticism. Amos was able to accept Kahneman’s notion that his original belief in the theory to which he proposed to his classroom was false. Because of his open mind and willingness to cooperate with Kahneman, Amos was able to work with Danny to propose a new and exciting theory on human decision-making. Some collaborations hold jealously and competitiveness, which can be poisonous to teamwork. Amos and Danny’s willingness to attribute credit to one another was an example of a healthy partnership. Their similar level of intelligence also drew them to each other. Amos and Danny were able to have deep intellectual conversations because of their similarities. Although many were shocked by their differences, Amos and Danny were able to find common ground in order to enjoy each other’s company. In many cases, we are so quick to judge an individual based on the many differences that may be between us, thus overlooking all of the similarities in the process.
ReplyDelete-Macy Phillips