‘Not only Competition, but also Dynamic Forgiveness, and Correlation or Mutual Feedback Relationship in the Society for Her Endless Development or Harmonization.’
‘To uplift global citizen’s peaceful vow from 9/11 as a New York’s tragedy into 9/11 as a sacred Gandhi’s Declaration for World Peace through Nonviolence with the Truth’
For the 100th anniversary class on ADR for honor Mahatma Gandhi’s Declaration of Nonviolence Movement in Sep. 11, 1906
In recent days, people have become easily competent with diverse approaches on negotiation. Last Wednesday, some of our classmates became a winner as his or my misunderstanding on the word “you” in the “Win as much as you can.” Further, the definition of question or focal point in the class makes us take different position. Thus, point of view on question force us to make a decision with capitalism or egalitarianism. How can we harmonize these differences, or take both views’ advantage?
On the one hand, taking capitalism with the subjective interpretation on the word “you” as individual one makes one student get the highest score with “42.” However, his team’s score is lower than average. Actually, the reason why I took a victim position in ninth turn with three members’ “X” is also caused by my misunderstanding on personal “you,” or faith to make one of our members the biggest guy. With the game rule, a person can gain score from negative 75 to positive 75 with team score 0. Further, a team can take score from negative 100 to positive 100 with equal personal score -25 or +25. According to the suggested class answer, the interpretation on “you” could be not only personal me, but also collective us just like Korean word “AH,” which means universal person and/or everybody. However, with capitalism or materialism way, a student who wants to be a winner need three members’ consistent obedience with vote “Y” just like “Yes-man,” who cannot resist on the command to harm others like terrorists. In order to take an initiative in the game, he might be credible guy or authoritative guy who can extract others “Y.” Without any positive rewards, nobody always takes “Y” position as a victim by the learning of Skinnerian’s behaviorism. Further, with specific suffering experience like my 2004’s failure on negotiation class with employ contract, people can easily take a victim position with Constructive Failure Tolerance by Dr. Seligman. What is more, not only learned helpless people but also constructively failed persons can make one guy the winner. However, while learned helpless people, who experienced only failure without others’ help, cannot make good guy the winner, constructively failed people, who overcame suffering with his confidence or others’ help like mother’s love, definitely cannot be persons who are willing to vote for not good guy. Therefore, even with capitalism approach, a person, who wants to be a winner, need persons who support him with positive way or negative way.
On the other hand, positioning with egalitarianism with the definition on “you” as plural meaning makes her team get the higher score with “74.” However, his team members’ score is three “19” and one “17.” Further, my team also get “74” with one “17,” one “15,” and two secret scores of “42.” In my team’s case, I try to persuade them to vote “Y” with the best option for everybody not to lose any point with multiply scores before each bonus turn. In stead of their accepting my opinion, I think I must take position as “Y” in the ninth turn to be a victim for others attaining one more scores without any conference. However, more than one of our team became “Y” voter with negative point. It makes me surprised since I expected I confronted all “Xs” at least once. Of course, if I take “X” position in the ninth turn, I could confront that situation only with my selfish selection. Therefore, it all starts with me, who not only am I, but also could be you. This is definitely egalitarian. However, my team has clearly diversity enough on scores from 15 to suspicious 23. When it comes to the best team score, positive 100 points could be possible with this game rule. However, taking equally positive 25 points makes people not be diligent like communism as materialism. It is because people who experienced on taking equal score do not want to innovate themselves forever. However, people, who experienced diversity’s advantage with higher scores than unregulated capitalist’s one, can diligently take class as even addition like me, compared with people who just take positive 100 with drop or no study. Consequently, despite egalitarian or Asian’s Buddhism approach, people, who want to be one of a wining team, need persons who take advantage of his sacrifice.
To conclude, both taking capitalism or competency and voting like egalitarian or Buddhism can be innovated by co-existence of a victim and a winner. However, in order to harmonize between differences, my suffering with the truth of game or everything in the world like Mahatma Gandhi is first step. My persuading other members on the best way to be a winning team and my sacrificing in the ninth turn might be a touchstone for the following class’s goal as so-called win-win way. I hope my suggestion on taking differences’ advantage can be a first step to solve North Korea’s missile problem with South Korea and USA.
Jae-Weon Choi
September 11, 2006