This is probably one of the most effective simulations I've been a part of. However, it was unfortunate that I happened to be part of the group that was targeted as the first to be kicked off the island. After the simulation ended, the debrief was very helpful, as every was able to talk about their plans in the open. It was interesting to see the different alliances that occurred, but also why certain other alliances should have happened. For example, logically Group 1 and Group 4 should have allied because where one group faltered the other succeeded. But Group 4 didn't make public alliances, and that deterred the other groups from making alliances.
It was interesting to see the paranoia and fear that caused other groups to attack. Apparently, Group 4 was the threat because they didn't have any alliances but had reasonable resources. So the other groups were going to gang up on them and take their resources (which in the long run wouldn't last long). However, that was actually bad decision making because once we were eliminated, other groups would turn on each other and there wouldn't be complete security for everyone. An interesting point that Mr. Stewart brought up was that when we were given the assignment to attain security, immediately most of us thought, "security for me" instead of "security for all of us." That type of thinking was very evident as groups revealed their plans after the simulation ended. Certain groups planned to cut off alliances and conquer since there was no one to answer to if the alliance was broken. While it could be seen as logical to pick off the smaller groups until there is only one left standing, it isn't very effective to attain security. As I said in the little speech in the beginning of class, the only way to absolutely ensure security is to make peace with everyone and have all our plans in the open with one another. I guess it can connect back to Machiavelli's idea (thanks MEHAP) about being feared or loved. While being feared can give you security in the short term, being loved will get you security in the long term.
I think it's really interesting that we immediately define security as safety for ourselves rather than safety for all. However, I don't think that it's necessarily the wrong way to think about it. Certainly, if one of the groups decided to just build a massive wall around their nation (not permitted by the simulation, but the point stands), they would ensure security for themselves while leaving everybody else out. That said, I agree that all the nations working together in the open is the best overall solution since it provides security for all nations.
ReplyDeleteI think that you brought up a lot of interesting points here. However, another reason that group 4 was targeted was because they were making secret alliances and acted very suspiciously. During the debrief, Tino said, "You don't know who we have an alliance with" and that's exactly true. That alone is a reason to attack, because we did not know what their intentions were.
ReplyDelete