VS: group dynamics

[Carpe Diem]

Dear Colleagues,
thanks for Adam for though provoking suggestions. I could think adding two
viewpoints. When the groups size grows over seven or eight, role rigidity
may emergence. When the group is smaller, it's easier for an individual to
take multiple roles, when the size grows, it's easier to be locked into one
permanent role. What do you think.
 
Another transforming point might be 12. One professor of social psychologdy
claimed, that we get a cognitive overflow here and in large groups. We are
not any more able to comprehend all the social relations in these large
groups. This means that we really begin to feel losing our identity to the
group and in some cases start struggling to keep it. This means, that we'll
see escalating group processes to emerge and negative behaviours to emerge.
 
So, I'll add to hunches:
 
at 8 role rigidity
at 12 social overflow and the struggle for identity
 
Cheers,
Jarmo 

  _____  

Lähettäjä: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org
[mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org] Puolesta Adam Blatner
Lähetetty: 28. tammikuuta 2007 21:59
Vastaanottaja: list at grouptalkweb.org
Aihe: group dynamics



Dear Colleagues,

    I've been contemplating group dynamics and warming up to an idea. Would
any of you who were interested in thinking about what different size groups
offer or can provide be willing to discuss the following contemplation with
me, adding your own hunches and suggestions?

 

Different properties emerge as systems become more complex. Molecules are
different from atoms, cells from molecules, etc. When one is alone, the
variable is to be more or less awake and engaged, or curious. When two are
present, a host of interactive possibilities, fighting/competing, supporting
helping.

When three are present, the possibility of alliances or inclusion, jealousy.
(This is the basis for the Oedipal complex, I think---that is, this is the
dynamic that is universal. The sexualization of the Oedipal triangle
occasionally occurs, and it generates certain complicating fixations. But I
don't agree with Freudians who think that this sexualized triangle is almost
ubiquitous.)

In the next section I could use your help. The following are only
preliminary brainstormings:

 When four are present, teams emerge. (The seeds for these potentials may
emerge at simpler levels, but at each level, it is almost difficult for
certain properties not to be operating.)

When five are present, leadership happens

When six are present, drama happens, or taking turns, focus on one, and the
dynamic of shyness versus self-presentation, of taking a stand, taking a
risk, standing up to be counted, and also in drama, one person becomes for a
moment the spokesperson or mythic questor for all. 

When seven are present the potential of schism becomes more manifest, the
subtle tension for unity, to avoid breaking into sub-groups, and to work
with the subtle subgroupings that almost can’t help occurring.

And so forth. I haven’t figured out the others, and the above ideas are
still nascent, tentative, and open to your suggestions.

Adam Blatner, M.D.
(please reply to adam at blatner.com)
website: www.blatner.com/adam/   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20070203/f87e0989/attachment.html