For the article written by Berg, it illustrates decision-making methods by the Red-Blue exercise to analyze competition and cooperation in business. In the article there is a detailed description of Red-Blue exercise, clearly tell audiences what it is and, how it works, and how it could be referred to the four factors influencing well-formed choices.
Firstly, I’d like to talk about the really attractive and interesting one that has not appeared in the previous articles, that is the appendix. There provide instructions for Red-Blue exercise with blank forms, clearly show how to proceed the experiment. I think this not only gives the information of experimental process in a more obvious way but also give a chance for the audiences to take part in the exercise to get their own results. That would be really fun and drive the audiences into the playing and thinking deeply.
Qualifiers exists in the last paragraph before conclusion in this article, existing at the last paragraph before concluding part. It showed three problems could occur, contest must occur, small perspective and gap between game and real business situation. Related to many articles about competition we have learned, qualifiers seem to be used widely in research paper. The reason may be that makes the arguments or evidences more persuasive, otherwise audiences might give out some refutations which make the article become less worthy to read.
The Red-Blue exercise could be a good example in some ways, since the whole article is only based on it. Those previous articles we have learned before always use several evidences, for example in Bateson’s and Hutcheon’s, there are many evidences of social phenomena with citations from scholars used to build up their arguments. While in Berg’s the Red-Blue exercise is able to construct the author’s argument, leading to the outcome of four factors affecting how people choose, competition or cooperation, that is what author want to present and let the audiences know. That could be comparatively easier for audiences to make sense, because if they understand how the Red-Blue exercise actually works the comprehension of principle of the exercise is easy to approach.
However, when I read over the article for several times, I found that make the Red-Blue exercise be the unique base could have many limitations, not only the qualifiers mentioned before but there are still some shortages. I noticed that Trevor posted have some similar stuff with my thought, competition can coexist with cooperation, just like what Molina argued for, the context of Berg’s is too narrow to point out some scientific argument for competition and cooperation in business. More examples in different fields should be considered. Also, in my opinion there could be some suggestion or advices provided at the end of the article, appealing for audiences to think deeply.
So to conclude my claim, Red-Blue exercise is an attractive evidence, illustrating the factors of human choosing to act clearly in some ways, but the restrictions by this single example is too narrow, not enough to construct appropriate argument for competition and cooperation in business. Competition and cooperation should not be forced on the opposing side but are able to coexist. We should think in different perspectives to give more accurate argument.