Next ISS Crew Incompatible

RobertB-DC writes "The International Space Station's replacement crew is being pulled for the B-Team. While the Reuters story quotes officials talking about "certain considerations", a Moscow Times article lays it on the line: '"Incompatible" ISS Crew Ditched' due to 'a psychological incompatibility.' The Russian-American team had already been shaken up once, when the original American member dropped out due to illness. Now, they're being replaced with a whole new pair."

Comments

Two-Person Crews are a Problem

[kalidasa]

The dynamics of a two-person crew are harder to manage than those of the three-person crew. If the two have a bad argument, there's no third party to mediate, and you end up with each one calling Earth looking for someone to back him up. In the end, both end up feeling isolated. With a three-person crew, there's someone to mediate and serve as a safety valve - even if two of the crew members aren't speaking to each other, there's a third person there they can talk to.

Re:Two-Person Crews are a Problem

[eraserewind]

The dynamics of a two-person crew are harder to manage than those of the three-person crew.

I have no idea whether you are correct or not (but I'm going to comment anyway).

Anyway, I just thought it was odd that you state a 3 person team has easier to manage dynamics than a 2 person team. In any courses on team building that I have done the instructors have always said that 3 is the absolute worst number to have because in a dispute there is a likelyhood that one person will always feel that they are being picked on or being ganged up on just because that's the way the numbers divide up when you have 3 people. If it happens more than once then the individual can feel very isolated very quickly and you can have a potentially explosive situation.

At least with only 2 people there is no chance of one person feeling that "everyone" is out to get them, and they are more likely to somply feel that the other one is just being a jerk.

Or so they said. ;-)

Re:Two-Person Crews are a Problem

[babbage]

As they say, "two's company, three's a crowd."

I think I'm on your side here -- groups of three are very unstable.

The Romans tried to have three-man leadership for a while with their triumvirates, and it worked so spectacularly well that the Republic collapsed and the Empire emerged, largely because they kept ending up with too many power plays and too much backstabbing (sometimes literally). Significantly, I'm not aware of any other country or major organization (companies, NGOs, etc) that have made a serious go at tri-partite leadership ever since.

I'm not aware of any psychological studies on this either way, but I think that what the Romans saw with political leadership would just be a particular example of a more general human social dynamic. The "three's a crowd" expression is usually thought of in terms of intimate relationships, but anyone that has lived with a pair of roommates, like for example in college dorms, has probably either experienced or at least witnessed the same thing, with old friends ready to kill each other over petty things, etc.

So. Anecdotes presented, assertions made. We're right. The grandparent poster is wrong. QED. :-)

You can't boil relationships down to a formula.

[hey!]

I don't think there is a perfectly general rule.

Looking at my children, three boys are usually rowdy fun on play dates but three girls are often a disaster (one gets frozen out). But there are so many exceptions we can't treat it as a tried-and-true formula. Sometimes we have three girls who play nicely together, and you may have a shy boy who gets overwhelmed by the other two.

Judging the right number of people probably can't be done in ignorance of the kinds of personalities they have, and certainly not in ignorance of the kind of work they will be doing and how they will be living.

An furthermore, occasional conflict is not necessarily bad. There are people I routinely have hammer-and-tongs arguments with that an outsider walking by would find disturbing. But we're actually close friends and the fact we can show anger with each other is a sign of mutual trust and respect. I know I can convince him to see his error, and he feels the same way about me. These arguments are highly productive and even creative. On the other hand, there are people I have very polite relationships with because there is not that much mutual respect and we don't waste our energy working things out. These relationships are much worse because not only do disagreements get drawn out, or resolved by seniority rather than reason, you also have to watch your back for nasty surprises.