Four-way chat group process defining animal society structure

¶ … Group Processes

The four-way chat came to the final conclusion regarding the eight main questions:

Define the majority and minority populations -- similarities and differences?

The majority population was that of mammals, the minority populations consisted of fish and frogs.

Relationship between three populations

The mammals were the superior or dominant leadership group. The frogs were accepted by mammals, but subordinate in power. Both mammals and frogs ate the least powerful group in the society, the fish.

Most powerful and evocative societal symbol

The most powerful symbol was that of the life-sustaining water, which also housed the fish, the source of food for the mammals and frogs.

Three acts with highest penalty

Soiling or damming up the water source or killing one's own kind were the highest offenses.

Three sociocultural rules govern social behavior

The mammals and fish were at war, the frogs were required to address all mammals as sir, and easy access to the water supply was determined by monetary power.

Three sociocultural rules govern private behavior

The mammals were stubborn and individualistic. The frogs were peacemakers, and the fish were weaker than both of the other groups.

Other group roles

PmgrnteBIRD emerged as a kind of 'me-too' voice, constantly affirming what the leader SkItLeS515 said, or altering its content slightly, but still following along without substantially disagreeing. MastrBettyPain18 came up with good ideas about acts that invoked penalties, but remained a more passive presence, only occasionally chiming in. SmplyUnfrgettabl tried to provide a 'voice of reason' for stratification of society relating to its geography and timekeeper.

Felt never would agree

This level of disagreement was never reached, although there was some debate as to what constituted private and public traits and societal rules, for instance, in determining whether the different group's traits of dominance or subservience counted as societal rules.

Lack of clarity about group remark

There was some difficulty in defining what constituted a sociocultural rule, versus a personality characteristic. It was clear amongst all group members that the frogs were in the middle and subservient to mammals, and that the fish were prey, but just how this worked out in the society in terms of rules and laws was open to debate.

Lack of clarity about own message

Because I did not really emerge as a dominating and defining group force, in terms of the beginnings of the discussion that set the terms for the society, I did not feel that I was misunderstood, although I do feel that SkItLeS515 and pmgrnteBIRD may have had too much of a role in defining the early debate.

Easier than face-to-face

In the context of the online chatroom, it was easier for all of the participants to joke, be creative, and let ideas flow between one another, which was helpful in creating a make-believe society. People may have felt silly in articulating themselves face-to-face about some of the created group's characteristics.

Harder than face-to-face

It was harder to focus, to keep careful watch on time, and harder to take the proceedings seriously. It was also harder to apply some of the learning of the classroom to the online format, because the format required short, pithy sentences rather than extended discussion of issues.

It might be helpful to use online discussions as a preliminary brainstorming situation for the group, but then come together for a face-to-face encounter later on, so that issues can be discussed in greater seriousness and depth.