I’m very taken by network theory. Linked is one of the most inspiring books I’ve ever read, and books like The Medici Effect, and Smart World develop aspects of network theory too. Currently I’m reading Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody and he makes this simple but thought-provoking point –
Individuals in group settings exhibit behaviours that no one could predict by studying single minds. No one has ever been bashful or extroverted while sitting alone in their room, no one can be a social climber or a man of the people without reference to society, and these characteristics exist because groups are not just simple aggregations of individuals.
What characteristics do you think you have which only appear when you are in a group?
I love network theory. I used to be painfully show, and while still introverted, I am way more social.
I’ve noticed that in groups, people generally seek approval from others. They can’t do it while they’re alone. There’s too many things to list though. What specifically are you looking for?
What parts of me are dominant depends on a lot of factors, though I recognize that company (or, more aptly, environment) plays a rather strong role in it.
Depending on the situation, the surroundings, and the companions, I’m alternately quiet and observant or boisterous and comical. I can be kind and compassionate or I can be stern and business-like. The variables are so complex that I can’t really answer this question with any kind of accuracy which, I think, is the point of the question, is it not, Doc?
@butch3r…I’m not looking for anything specific. You’re right though, a very, very common way of feeling good about yourself is to seek the approval of others. It’s good to anchor your self-worth in your own terms, I think, but it is also important to be able to figure out what kind of feedback others are giving us.
@mrschili…..you’ve hit the nail on the head (as you usually do!) – that’s EXACTLY the point of the question! Isn’t it interesting to understand that we each behave quite differently in different contexts? And how that shows us that we can never fully know another person, because we can only really see those aspects of them which come to the fore when they’re with us.
Doc, without knowing the name of this theory, I teach it in my writing and speaking classes. I call the phenomena “social contracts;” those unwritten, generally unspoken (but almost always understood) rules of behavior and engagement that change with environment, companions, and situation.
I explain to my students that, even though they’re still who they ARE, they can (and likely DO) manifest different parts of themselves with me than they may with, say, their best friends, or a policeman, or their grandmother. They behave differently in church than they might at the skate park. They’ll chose different words to speak with a boss than they would use to speak with a partner.
I’m not always sure they “get” it, but at least I get them started on thinking about it.
oh mrschili, how I wish all teachers were like you!