- This is part of a series, along with the prior Group Preference Discovery: a parable of choosing movies, and the forthcoming Cognition as a Collaboration with Nature, to be ready next week.
In the previous post, I examined through a parable comparing two different kinds of group decision making strategies: (1) "freely" throwing out suggestions, vs (2) veto-or-not the other group member's choice.
From that, we talked about communication in terms of information content and how it affects whether we can really get to know a person better (as a friend, let's say) in what is a repeated game (as in game theory, or micro-economics).
Now, we can also talk about what it means to collaborate, not just cooperate, but arrive at decisions via collaboration. That's what we'll talk about presently.
See, both strategies above can be cooperative. In fact, the veto-or-not strategy could be seen as an extreme form of cooperation via deferring totally to the other party unless the choice picked is just too far outside the bounds of one's bare minimum acceptability.
Though it's cooperative, it really is another classic example of what non-collaboration looks like. The party who engages in veto-or-not behaviour is purposefully, even if unintentionally due to ignorance, withholding information from the other parties. That was clear in the previous post's parable where we saw how veto-or-not communicates exactly one bit of information, a true vs false, or 1 vs 0, etc.