Reply to comment

 I didn't quite get how the game really worked at first, because every time I played I won by five points. I think I cooperated three times, then competed a bunch of times, then cooperated then competed. I know the point of playing this game wasn't just "to win"; it was to make us think about the next (last) section of the course we're moving into, which is group work and negotiation in a large context that needs creating (BMC's curriculum/creating a college curriculum). Essentially, everyone has an idea of what they want a school to look like, but we don't have the resources to accomedate each and every one of our visions for the school... this should sound familiar (the Tragedy of the Commons). Our "Common" is the one single school we have to develop, and the tragedy is that we simply can't have everything we want. That's where negotiation comes in. In the Prisoner's dilemma, you had to realize that there is no winning... I mean, not really. What is winning anyway? I could get a higher score, which was satisfying, sure... what matters is that you couldn't "win" if you only "competed"-- and if you only cooperated, you'd be even (that isn't such a bad thing, is it...? Do hierarchies naturally exist?). This game is an interesting interactive metaphor for balance of considering cooperation/communal needs and individual drive, which we can apply to the curriculum conversations we'll be having and then also to the world at large.