Keep it up folks. I'll keep score ;-)

John

PS. On the subject of providing a panel of experts - is that necessary? CCV is free because we keep operating costs down - panels of experts don't generally come cheap and the great thing about this site is that by bouncing ideas and concepts off one another we can achieve more than we could in isolation - in the main part, anyway.

Hi Sara

well its nice to know that we both agree on something.......its pretty hot here in India too. :))
Let me clarify.......I am not saying that people should not be allowed to participate UNLESS they contribute, I know it was kind of implied but that's not what I meant. People should contribute.....thats what I meant.

John
hi..... I was not sugggesting experts......just trainers getting together and interacting more freely.

A set of replies here:

You are entirely right that business models tend to migrate out from the U.S. to elsewhere. This is hardly surprising-- without looking at any other factors (and there are thousands) the U.S. is the most populous industrialized nation, and English the most widely spoken language. Plenty of innovators to create new models, the largest and most lucrative single market in which to test them, and the most commonly-spoken language to vector them around the world. The high levels of computerization in the U.S. also accelerate this spread. Nor does it hurt that, culturally speaking, Americans' enthusiasm for new ideas and technology reaches the level of recklessness.

You are also right that the fact that something has been going on for a long time does nothing to establish that it is desirable, whether we are talking about polio or a model of industrial organization.

*However* I remain convinced that blaming "capitalism" is not appropriate. The term itself, since Marx (or was it Smith?) coined it, has been attached to such a wide variety of *specific* regulatory regimes-- from 19th century U.K. onward-- as to be basically devoid of meaning. Just what Silicon Valley, circa 1995, has in common with Manchester, circa 1895, is (I think) somewhat obscure. Japan's construction industry and currency brokerages in the City of London might as well be located on different planets, in terms of how people actually interact, but both are supposedly 'capitalism'.

It is not "capitalism", but specific regulatory regimes and forms of business organization that produce social consequences.

On another vein, it is interesting that you cite me for unilateralism (I am not an American, by the way). If I understand your argument correctly, your underlying theme is that jobs in the U.K. should be preserved at the cost of not creating jobs elsewhere. Is that not unilateral? And displaced workers benefit from lower costs of living even more than those that are working-- they have less money, right?

At any rate, I do think that "damage to local economy, loss of skill sets, social impact" IS vitally important. The whole point of having an economy at all is to ensure decent standards of living for as many people as possible, in the short term. If some get filthy rich as a result, so be it. The people who get displaced need to be re-trained, and up-skilled. They also need access to social connections so that they can find new jobs. Preferably, they should also get access to capital, to start up new businesses-- to sell to the same people in India that now have decent incomes. Part of the problem the U.K. has is bankers' pennywise, pound-foolish risk aversion. The typical bank balks at financing a new startup with $100K or so, but thinks nothing of gambling billions in currency futures (viz. Barings Singapore). But this problem is world-wide.

To Mr. Afreddy--
I agree with your comment in "Misunderstood". This is a giant digression.

But the point Closed was making needed to be aired: there are grounds to consider whether, by unselfishly sharing information and advice, you are digging the grave of your own business/career. From my point of view, if your career or business goes under, does it matter whether a local or overseas competitor is doing the burying? To be confident in sharing information, people need to be confident that they benefit by doing it, through business contacts and information they get back. That was the point of my tit-for-tat posting: if you share with those that share, those that share will eventually wipe out those who only rip off ideas.

I think we all want trainers and others to interact more, this increases the value of the forum for everyone that uses it. The question is about *how* to make this happen.

To Mr. Clark--
Having CC Voice bear the cost of a panel of experts makes little sense to me, personally. You probably have almost the same skill base right now, because CC Voice is basically a barter market in information.

To Brent--
Of course the U.S. is a target of invective. It's on top. If a nation succeeds economically, and others do not, are responses even necessary? I think most non-U.S. citizens (whatever they say publicly) are privately of the opinion that the U.S., and U.S. companies, would make more friends internationally by *refraining* from rubbing others' noses in their success.

Hey Wiggle thanks for your balanced reply its much appreciated, I certainly didn't intend to make you Wriggle so I wont 'r's around.

I cited American culture as being unilateral not yourself, nor did I intend to intimate yourself, if that's the way you read it. I merely offered a counter argument against your UK colonialism point.

I haven't advocated a NIMBY point of view (not in my back yard) indeed I'm quite happy to contribute to creating jobs elsewhere (even Wales!) as long as they are not lost back home - sustainability.

>>>From my point of view, if your career or business goes under, does it matter whether a local or overseas >>>competitor is doing the burying?

Yes it does, look again, those shovels aren't for burying, they're the ones they they'll do you in with. They aren't the tool, they're the weapon.

Wig,

The Prisoners dilemma only works if both teams work together, if one team doesnt want to give (read - has nothing to give) then it doesnt work.

Wig,

Thanks for the reply - I enjoy reading your posts. I agree, no post at all would have been better than my usual tongue-in-cheek riposte. The topic comes up a great deal, and has just become tiresome.

to Closed,

Your counter-argument is well taken-- actually, I do not think it is at all inconsistent with what I was saying. U.K. colonialism, migration of U.S. business models...all of this contributes.

In re: the ongoing discussion with Brent--I do not think U.S. culture is unilateral. Many perceive it as such, but the *loudest* voices emerging from the U.S. do not necessarily reflect majority opinion. I also think that "U.S. culture" is like "capitalism"-- it's a label papering over a lot of internal diversity. Go to San Franciso, then go to Savannah, GA. Sure, it's the "same" country, but culturally...a world of difference. GW Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Congress, U.S. multinationals, do not really reflect the mainstream of U.S. opinion. All of their policies are an outcome of the constitutional architecture in the U.S., in particular social and economic conditions. It *was* a 21st century country, with 21st century technology, hobbled by an 18th/19th century *formal* constitution; post 9-11 it is rapidly evolving into something else entirely.

On NIMBY...sorry, but if "creating jobs" is only o.k. where jobs are "not lost back home"...that's *still* NIMBY. Your exception is swallowing the rule. Loss of jobs is an essential element of increased productivity. Yes, jobs should be *replaced*, but if "job loss" is invoked to block changes, that blocks increased productivity. Sustainability only comes by constantly creating *new* and *better* jobs by solving problems. Name a problem-- a potential job exists in solving it, as soon as you can find someone who benefits enough from the solution to pay for it.

And, game-theoretically-speaking, we aren't looking at Prisoner's Dilemma, but an endlessly iterated game with a variable number of participants, variable payoffs, varying information, etc. PD is a very limited simulation. The whole point is that *we don't even know what one team **may** have to give*, only that they appear to be holding out. Tit-for-tat is about relationship-building in conditions of mutually incomplete information, and limited communication-- exactly what we have.

to Brent,

I have heard well-reasoned criticism of U.S. international business practices, from experienced people. These commentators have said that U.S. businesses tend to be 'financially unilateral'.

What do I mean? When there is an opportunity to expand the pie, U.S. decision-makers have a marked tendency to insist that they get the lion's share of the increase-- even *at the cost of not having a deal at all.* Again, I have heard this in several quarters. That they can often get away with this (kudos to them) testifies only to the fact that they are often the partners able to offer the largest pie-expansion (smaller share of a bigger piece, but still bigger).

But in a situation where others can offer just as much as the Americans, they tend to lose out-- where they could otherwise gain. And that costs them.

Now, obviously I am overgeneralizing-- not all U.S. businesspeople are like this. But enough of them are to raise both ire and puzzlement with others. I think it **might** be a product of living in such a big market. If you burn one bridge, there are always others. Hence the tendency towards litigiousness-- a very expensive habit.

What is it? Never heard of it, and the topic is getting very confusing for me because of this lack of knowledge.

Thanks!
Marianne

Ms. Marrou,

Sorry about the unexplained discussion tangent. The Prisoner's Dilemma is part of a body of knowledge generally labeled "Game Theory". Game Theory is often considered to be part of Economics.

It is called "Game Theory" because what it simulates, or models, is the results of decision-making in competitive/cooperative situations. I should point out that game theory has 'grown into' becoming a branch of knowledge in it's own right gradually. People came to realize that several different social issues that they used to think were entirely distinct problems could all be modeled and dealt with using similar techniques.

(Kind of like how all kinds of different businesses used to do telephone sales and customer service in various departments of their operations, before they realized that concentrating it all into call centers made more sense). The Prisoner's Dilemma is one of the "games", and it is still more famous than Game Theory itself.

Think of a poker game, or whatever kind of card etc. game is played for money where you are. The idea is that you have (1) a fixed set of rules, (2) players that make decisions within those rules, based on what they guess/believe the other players will do, (3) to maximize their own payoffs.

In one version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, you have two guys J. and I, who have been arrested for committing some crime together. The cops have them, and have locked them up in separate cells, so they cannot communicate.

J. and I can each individually decide to confess, or not to confess. If J. confesses, and I confess, we each get 5 years. If J. confesses, but I do not, J. gets 2 years, and I get 10 years. If I confess, but J. does not, I get 2 years, and J. gets 10 years. If *neither* of us confesses, we both get convicted of a lesser crime and only get 3 years.

Given the facts, you can map out the payoffs in a two-by-two grid.

Now, obviously, both J. and I together are better off if *neither* confesses. The *best* result either of us can hope for is to confess while the other guy keeps quiet (confessor gets 2 years, silent gets 10). But both of us know that, too. So we have to look at which choice to make.

I can get 2, 3, 5, or 10 years.
If I choose to confess, I get either 2 or 5 years.
If I do not confess, I get 3 or 10 years.
*Here's the important part: no matter what the other guy does, I'm better off confessing.* And J. knows this too, because he's done the same calculation.

So I *know* what he'll do: J. will confess. So I will, too.

Result: both J. and I will *always* confess, if we're smart. But this is **not** the best result we both could get: 3 years each, for keeping our mouths shut.

So, under the right conditions, two different people competing for the best outcome for themselves, make all the right decisions but wind up with an imperfect outcome.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is real, and cops the world over use it, every day. Whenever they arrest several people, the first thing they do is split them up so that they cannot communicate, then tell them they can reduce their sentences by confessing, but if they keep quiet, they're in for harsh treatment. PD works.

PD sort of applies to this bulletin board, in the sense that it can be seen as a series of PD games.

The decision each person has to make is whether to contribute knowledge, or just take ideas without contributing. Each person does not know if the others will contribute. We all do better if all of us contribute, but not as well as some one person might do if the others contribute, and he or she just takes their ideas.

What we want to avoid, is each person individually deciding that their payoff is better if they do not contribute, no matter what others do. We want the reverse of that, so each person is at least no worse off by contributing, no matter what others do.

In a (very long) nutshell, that's what Closed and I were talking about. It is right to say that PD does not work if one of the players/teams has nothing to offer. My response was that we don't even know how much the payoffs are worth.

Marianne Marrou may have ideas/knowledge/contacts that are worth *way* more to me than they are to her, for whatever reason. The reverse can be true also-- this is why it makes sense to trade ideas/knowledge/contacts. But neither of us knows what the other might have, so we run the risk of holding back because each of us is afraid that the other will benefit and we will not, or even lose.

My responses are getting waaay to long, sorry.

"My responses are getting waaay to long, sorry."

Not at all, your recent posts are some of the best I've read on this site - and I think I can possibly lay claim to having read all of the posts over the last two and a bit years. So, don't worry about the length of your posts - there is still 100Gb+ of free database space on our server, and I don't think even the most enthusiastic poster could dent that in a hurry.

Keep up the excellent posts - a breath of fresh air, I think.

John

Thank you for the description of the PD game. I'm a Computer Science graduate, so I skipped most of the economics classes. I appreciate your broadening my horizons. :)

Marianne,

I support Wiggle's description of the Iterated Prisoners Dilemma, coined by Robert Alexrod in the late '70-s when he staged a computer tournament. The model has profoundly reaching applications, 321 of which are listed on the following link.......

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/7600/0

Everything from Economics to wireless networks to genetics and the more prosaic.

The first notable behaviour for the IPD designed and studied by Axelrod is the Tit For Tat behaviour hence the reason I picked up on it. We seem to be at cross purposes on this semantic debate so I wont labour the point.

Wiggle,
Apropos reciprocation in cyberspace (tit for tat, IPD call it what you will), I found this academic paper which I think covers all the arguments far better than you or I with our layman's understanding ever will. Its certainly expanded my thinking on this intriging new subject

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm#FOOTNOTE_5


Take care

Hi!

I must confess that I have not read all of the 32 responses that this item has had on date and the average response rate is hovering @ an enviable 8-10%, and my thoughts may have already been keyed in by some other member.

Has it not always been a part of the learning and teaching process that those who are taught, go out to teach the next batch of learners.

Most of the interaction that happens within peer circles is more evaluatory in nature, and hence more of a criticism than a contribution.

If one is to be happy about one's professional skills, it is essential to build good students, and the teachers benchmark is the performance of the students.

But it is very rarely that a teacher teaches a student who goes out and comes back to teach the teacher.

It is just that we need to specify what it is we are willing to give and what it is that we seek. Time draws it out of us our willingnes or otherwise notwithstanding.

That's a riddle of learning and teaching - IMHO.

Hi all,

Despite all the great arguments put forward, each in their own right making a valid point, I feel inclined to agree with Mahidnar in his last, perhaps because its the most simplistic.

A good teacher is not some one who gets jealous of his pupils success. An economics professor who passes all his knowledge on to his disciple, only then to see the very same a few years later working in the city, commanding a salary the size of his formulas, would not be doing the job if he didn’t love it.

Don’t teach if you aren’t happy to do so. If you’re not teaching, but just showing off your knowledge, then there’s no one to blame, as the choice was made to openly shout it out. And lets be real – you’ve put it on the net – you can’t shout much louder than that.

Graham
I’m still a pupil though, so mind what you let me read :-)

This ones been quiet a while, let me stir it up again....................

Mahidar and Graham,

I think perhaps there is a misinterpretation of the notion of teaching/ pupils and learning.

teach ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tch)
v. taught, (tôt) teach·ing, teach·es
v. tr.
To impart knowledge or skill to: teaches children.
To provide knowledge of; instruct in: teaches French.
To condition to a certain action or frame of mind: teaching youngsters to be self-reliant.
To cause to learn by example or experience: an accident that taught me a valuable lesson.
To advocate or preach: teaches racial and religious tolerance.
To carry on instruction on a regular basis in: taught high school for many years.

Teaching is generally what happens to pupils at a school or authority based environment for the following reasons;

Adults...........
Decide for themselves what is important to be learned - children don't
Need to validate the information based on their beliefs and experience - children don't
Expect what they are learning to be immediately useful- children don't
Have previous experience and as a result may have fixed viewpoints - children don't
Have significant ability to serve as a knowledgeable resource to facilitator and others-children don't
Are problem centred - children don't
Actively participate -children don't
Function best in collaborative environments -children don't
Share in planning-children don't



Lets be clear, teaching is not what occurs on this forum, although learning does occur, this is a by product of sharing information snippets in limited adult orientated learning environment.

Lets also be clear that there is a world of difference between showing off and focussing on ensuring that people learn, I've never been taught by a show off knowledge expert who was a good teacher, but I've been taught by some superbly understated teachers who fundamentally understood how children learnt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the American debate,

Wiggle, I note your perspectives on the world, other countries and in giving voice to non-Americans on America

You might like to read

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwta/2963312.stm

Then watch the programme

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwta/default.stm

Hi all,
Contribution would most of the times be by the people who are experienced. Who know what goes on in the industry. People who have a bundle of knowledge to share. I dont know how much you would agree to the fact , but knowledge by sharing always increases so where does the point of not sharing it with people who dont share come from. People who dont share might just be using resources or probebly are the ones new to the forum and to call center, but then this why we all are here for, to help each other out and Share our expertise in different fields of industry.
Most of the people simply dont reply possibly cause when they read all these posts on CCV, most of the material just passes over their heads and they get a feeling that they need to start from scratch and learn a great deal. We all who are regular on this forum know some names who we all recognize are the most experienced and believe me everyone of us would like to be like them. Answering more and Asking less.

regards
nitin