No internet connection
  1. Home
  2. Strategic Interaction

Strategic Interaction Mega Thread

By suspendedreason2021-02-06 17:26:44.714Z

Everyday interaction, most substantially, can be described as "a game of tacit coordination among players maintaining expectations" (Vollmer 2013).

...the "effective cooperation in maintaining expectations" pictured by Goffman (1983) is associated not only with the overall stability of the "interaction order," but also with questions of individual and collective efficiency, and with persistent inequalities sustained among participants of everyday interaction.

Lot of links to the reflexivity of socializing (a la Rochat's Others in Mind), level-k theory (a la Princess Bride), and the predictive processing frame of Karl Friston & Andy Clark.

Goffman 1969:

Two or more parties must find themselves in a well-structured situation of mutual impingement where each party must make a move and where every possible move carries fateful implications for all of the parties. In this situation, each player must influence his own decision by his knowing that the other players are likely to try to dope out his decision in advance, and may even appreciate that he knows this is likely. Courses of action or moves will then be made in light of one's thoughts about the others' thoughts about oneself. An exchange of moves made on the basis of this kind of orientation to self and others can be called strategic interaction.

As G.H. Mead has argued, when an individual considers taking a course of action, he is likely to hold off until he has imagined in his mind the consequence of his action for others involved, their likely response to this consequence, and the bearing of this response on his own designs. He then modifies his action so that it now incorporates that which he calculates will usefully modify the other's generated response. In effect, he adapts to the other's response before it has been called forth, and adapts in such a way that it never does have to be made.

Vollmer presents a picture of Garfinkel and Goffman's 60s work as missing the ball on the true nature of tacit coordination and mixed-motive games—misunderstanding Schelling's work by taking the overly narrow view of games that had dominated game theory previous to Schelling. Contemporary authors like James Coleman (1968) and Jessie Bernard (1965) had predicted, or hoped, that a "social-interactionist school" defined by the "convergence between game theory and sociology with Goffman and Schelling as 'the meeting point'" would emerge—and yet, such a convergence was "left unexplored by Goffman, and since by many other students of everyday interaction." This is where we come in, boys!

  • 1 replies
  1. In reply tosuspendedreason:
    suspendedreason2021-02-20 23:27:52.465Z

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramaturgy_(sociology)

    Goffman forms a theatrical metaphor in defining the method in which one human being presents itself to another based on cultural values, norms, and beliefs. Performances can have disruptions (actors are aware of such), but most are successful. The goal of this presentation of self is acceptance from the audience through carefully conducted performance.[4] If the actor succeeds, the audience will view the actor as he or she wants to be viewed.[5][6]

    A dramaturgical action is a social action that is designed to be seen by others and to improve one's public self-image. In addition to Goffman, this concept has been used by Jürgen Habermas and Harold Garfinkel, among others.

    Goffman contrast front stage, or "front," where a performer puts on a show, and the "back stage," where a performer can relax and leave character.

    There are seven important elements Goffman identifies with respect to the performance:[10]

    1. Belief in the part that one is playing: Belief is important, even if it cannot be judged by others; the audience can only try to guess whether the performer is sincere or cynical.
    2. The front (or "mask"): a standardized, generalizable, and transferable technique for the performer to control the manner in which the audience perceives them. We all put on different masks throughout our lives.
    3. Dramatic realization: a portrayal of aspects of the performer that they want the audience to know. When the performer wants to stress something, they will carry on the dramatic realization, e.g. showing how accomplished one is when going on a date to make a good first impression.
    4. Idealization: a performance often presents an idealized view of the situation to avoid confusion (misrepresentation) and strengthen other elements (e.g., fronts, dramatic realization). Audiences often have an 'idea' of what a given situation (performance) should look like, and performers will try to carry out the performance according to that idea.
    5. Maintenance of expressive control: the need to stay 'in character'. The performance has to make sure that they send out the correct signals, as well as silencing the occasional compulsion to convey misleading ones that might detract from the performance.
    6. Misrepresentation: the danger of conveying a wrong message. The audience tends to think of a performance as genuine or false, and performers generally wish to avoid having an audience disbelieve them (whether they are being truly genuine or not).
    7. Mystification: the concealment of certain information from the audience, whether to increase the audience's interest in the user or to avoid divulging information which could be damaging to the performer.
    1. Progress
    2. suspendedreasonpinned this topic 2021-02-06 17:26:55.871Z.