We have existed as a group long before even I joined them. We've always been called close friends even to the point of being called exclusive. Well, I liked that. For once in my life I was in the exclusive group instead of the ones being left out. We have done things as a group - we've gone out, we've eaten together, we've performed together, we've even coordinated clothes together.
But the biggest threat to our fragility of our group is ourselves. Our diversity often became a struggle as one party had to learn to adjust and accept another party. This has caused tension in our group sure, but we've always managed to survive and move on. We've adapted; we've prevailed. Then a great suggestion that we should take some time off together for a trip comes...
What do you get when you have two evenly matched groups debating for the destination of their choice? Well, there are only three outcomes possible. 1) One group budges and lets the other group win. 2) The group splits into two and go their separate ways. 3) The group goes no where.
Scenario 1 is the most likely to happen. We are close-knit. We won't want this fight to go on for too long. one side would budge, but there will definitely be some unhappy people especially from the side who seems to have perceived to have lost. The possibility of some of them declining to go for the trip as a protest against their loss, is a possibility, but so is the possibility of the other side "rubbing it in".
I just hope when the decisions are made, some making up can be done. There is going to be disappointments.
Scenario 2 is the one I'm hoping will not happen. I hate being left out and I hate it more when I have to chose between two groups of friends.
Scenario 3 is what will happen if no decision can be made. It'll be a sad scenario, but in this case everyone loses and so after the blame-game is over, there'll be no more fighting.
It's just like what my lecturer mentioned in class. "The more choices you give to people, the least happy they are." For every option you introduce, you create a "what-if" scenario. It's like making a decision based on a throw of a dice. As Abed from Community would have said, "we will be creating six new alternate realities."
Now to explain the title. The Robber's Cave experiment was a classic experiment in which two groups of kids were pitted against each other. The competition among them started with little name-calling and then escalated to intense rivalry. To make them friends, the experimenters introduced a superordinate goal which is a goal where both groups are forced to work together to solve a common problem.
So the question would be. After this conflict, and after a compromise has been agreed upon. Would we need a superordinate goal to bring us back together as the 'tight-knit exclusive' group we once were? Or can we find it in ourselves to give and take?
No comments:
Post a Comment