Aha! And so you’re in (with or without a required password). The breakthrough games &/or challenges that follow aren’t much harder, yet gateways to the more profound even so….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MENU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# 0: Aha! The DOT GAME Group Challenge
Developed by Douglas Harding (On Living Without a Head, Losing Face & Finding Self & others), this is about as simple a group challenge as there is, yet with the potential to blow your Aha! mind wide open on progressive levels, as the group first solves & then interprets what’s learned from the challenge.
Basic rules: No speaking, no words, mirrors, selfies, reflections in glass, smart-phones, cameras or other self-viewing devices. First, the host, guide or other helper will apply one of variously colored dots to each person’s forehead in such a way that the recipient doesn’t (& can’t) see the color of his or her dot. The color of each dot determines that person’s color-coded group. The group’s challenge is to self-organize, each color-coded group in its own part of the room. The guide provides this information precisely & adds, “Since no words or speaking are allowed, neither are questions of me. Begin.”
Results: The challenge is easily met, although usually with some initial puzzlement, as participants tend to first wonder which group they belong to, the one part of the total (“group”) puzzle the rules are designed to prevent knowing or solving for themselves. On the other hand, each & every individual has the ability to “solve” every other part of the whole group’s challenge, i.e., which individuals belong in which sub-groups. As soon as one player acts on that potential, helping others find their group, the solution quickly spreads, as others join in the pointing & guiding, until they are guided, in return, by others.
Discussion: Solving the challenge is not the point. The most important part happens in the follow-up., as the group processes its results, starting with the guide asking the likes of, “What just happened? What conclusions, if any, can be drawn from your experience? What can we learn from it? What facts, however seemingly obvious, might be stated?”
There are many possible answers, all worth being drawn out of the group itself, being accepting whatever they are. Among them (&/or drawn further out by the guide), may be noted the value of having different points of view on a challenge no one point of view can actually fulfill alone, along with the fact that we get nowhere useful if we focus on the one part of the problem we can’t solve, instead of the countless parts we can do something about. In this case, in other words, being self-centered keeps us dislocated, while trying to see ourselves from the outside is no help to us or others in our group(s). Parties may take many lessons.
The most profound & ultimately meaningful lesson, making the biggest difference in subsequent experience, will likely be–on the one hand, the most basic fact of all; & on the other, so obvious, hardly any one actually noted it. According to Yours Crudely, thanks to Douglas, the most basic fact is simply that, in our actual experience, we do not see our own face! In direct contrast to the head & face we see for every other individual present, we don’t actually see such a head or face on ourselves directly.
As a simple fact of actual perception, individuals can become more consciously aware of the “no-face” singular 1st persons seem to uniquely have, unlike what’s seen on 2nd (you) & 3rd (them) persons, clarifying not only our perception, but its distinction from our conceptions (what we think), i.e., between our senses & our ideas, in other words. We may think our own face &/or head, & even feel something we conceptualize ion such categories, but we don’t see (hear, smell or even taste) them directly.
I received this lesson directly from Douglas Harding in the early 1970’s, starting with a Reno workshop with a rich menu of related exercises. Douglas had had an enlightenment experience in the Himalayas after British service in India, returning to an Oxford PhD in Eastern philosophy of little help in efforts to pass along his experience. He then developed his menu of simple, perception-based, child-like games, which have proved far more effective than erudite conceptual terminology for actually transmitting (i.e., sharing) the experience of deeper, more enlightened perspective. Crossing paths with him was a transformative experience, enlightening on many levels, and I subsequently shared his consciousness re-training games with countless groups & individuals in the 5 or 6 decades after.
[Douglas died in his 90s in 2007, but it seems his books & various groups keep his teachings in circulation, including games, books & discussions, e.g., via the website, www.headless.org.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~AHA! BEAKTHROUGHS–
# 00. The Dot Dash Variation
The Dot Dash Variation adds a slightly competitive tweak as an aspect of team-building. It’s played exactly as the basic Dot Game, with the added element of being presented as a team challenge to see which color-coded teams can get most quickly fully assembled, with the color-coded teams then working together on challenges going forward. In fact, the competitive element needn’t be emphasized to a “dash” level, particularly since the essence of the solution involves cooperation. The competitive version may shift the focus of cooperation from the group as a whole to members of “one’s own” group, once that’s known, though it may also speed up the rate at which members of other groups catch on to what’s called for, i.e., the cooperation necessary to keep up. Follow up discussion can include some focus on such “group” concepts. e.g., how personal points-of-view & group-view relate. The main points will remain as above.
# 1. Pop’s Oral Puzzle challenge: 3-role format
communication modes: writing, phoning, texting, showing….
Consider the differences in giving directions by showing someone how to do something; explaining how to do it by audio phone alone, with back-&-forth for questions & explanations; & giving directions in writing, where the uncertain reader can’t ask for clarification. Exercises designed to improve abilities for the most difficult of these, writing, usually come with the downside of a long delay in feedback, if any, meaning awareness of what works & what doesn’t may stagnate. Pop’s 3-role puzzle challenge addresses this factor by making the features of both successful & unsuccessful communications more immediately visible, tangible, and subject to improvement.
Starting with the general framework developed for college freshman writing classes in the early 1970s, the particular T-puzzle used wasn’t original, though the innovative 3-role-framework for use in writing classes may have been at least partly so. Other teachers had pioneered putting communicators & recipients back to back for practice in direction-giving, usually allowing the receiver to ask questions when the first attempts had failed, changing focus from the writer’s one-directional transmission to the less demanding back-&-forth of a live interaction by audio phone.
Our 3-ROLE-FRAMEWORK takes this one-step further, designating:
1 permanent recipient, who stays in place in this role throughout, being the only group member who has not shown or seen the solution;
a few temporary communicators, just 1 at a time;
any number of overseers, who ultimately manage the process by observing what happens (the directions given & their effects), & calling for a CHANGE when any 3 agree the directions have gone more or less hopelessly awry, at which point one overseer & the communicator change positions & roles.
~~~Note that overseers must remain silent during the challenge except when calling for a change, i.e., a fresh start with a new communicator, .who starts with the benefit of having observed effects of prior directions given (including where these went wrong). By witnessing successes & failures, overseers may improve their own subsequent efforts accordingly, with a whole new point-of-view. Communicators, meanwhile, receive near immediate feedback on what works & what doesn’t.
The basic equipment consists of two chairs or schooldesks placed back to back & a small puzzle (here 4 2-D pieces). The RECEIVER who will try to assemble the puzzle from directions alone, takes one chair; the 1st COMMUNICATOR,who will give the directions, takes the other. Neither can see the other, and only the communicator can speak. The OVERSEERS gather around to observe.
The guide sets the pieces of the puzzle down mixed up for each of the first two actors, & then, silently, shows the COMMUNICATOR (& simultaneously the OBSERVERS) how the pieces should be assembled [in our case, VOILÁ, more or less a T], & then says, “You each have 4 pieces the same size & shape that go together in the same way. Without using any words, I have shown the transmitter the steps in how the pieces are meant to go, and it’s now up to the communicator alone to transmit this information to the receiver the way a writer must, using words. No one else may, so no questions may be asked beforehand, but may be answered without words simply by careful watching. BEGIN.,” with or without addenda (e.g., encouragement to minimize steps, be clear, etc.).
The arc of the exercise: The initial directions will rarely go smoothly, if ever, and the guide must watch the frustration level, & suggest that the overseers change the communicator ASAP when it rises. If the challenge hasn’t been met after 3 communicators, the guide may CHANGE THE COMMUNICATION MODE from the oral simulation of writing (where the reader can’t talk back or ask questions) to two-way audio, as on a phone, allowing the receiver to ask for clarifications, etc. Another name for the COMMUNICATOR is TRANSMITTER, being the one transmitting the information. MODES of Transmission include showing, often most effective.
Puzzles may vary; any easy enough will do, as long as not so easy receivers figure out the solution on their own. The T-puzzle master I used somehow worked particularly well, with only 4 pieces, yet non-obvious enough that newcomers pretty much always need good directions (if not actual showing). [The guide should probably have a back-up puzzle as well, in case the receiver is too quick &/or puzzle-savvy, switching receivers as well as pieces for the next round.]
Note that the receiver who assembles must stay the same throughout, being the only one who hasn’t seen the puzzle’s solution. The other two roles CHANGE whenever observers see that current efforts have gone off track. Replacement communicators come armed with the advantage of having seen the result of specific mis-directions (&/or of mis-applications), and can use this knowledge to improve their own instructions for tasks in the future along with the one at hand.
Clarifying why directions go awry (i.e., what it takes to have them go right!) is the point of the challenge, of course, & so that is also the focus of the all-important follow-up discussion. Here we may note that “Incorrect Assumptions” is the most common reason initial communicators must be quickly replaced. The most common of these is that both have corresponding pieces of the same color, while the guide is advised to make sure this isn’t so, or implied. (Avoid color-corresponding pieces, as otherwise too easy an identifying factor.) Other wrong assumptions might be made about the difference between face-up & face-down positions for the particular pieces & possible labeling
Disconnections between directions intended & received become directly & immediately obvious with impact a teacher’s marginal comments days later can’t match. Note that the recipient’s role comes with a high frustration potential, whenever directions are unclear, ambiguous, & downright confusing. The characteristics of success should becomes fairly easy to recognize & apply–with a little practice. For openers, it trains the would-be communicator to look more carefully, to focus on how to identify individual pieces. and then to sharpen how to describe their relations, how they fit together.
=====================================
=====================================
=====================================