For two players. (P1 and P2) Each player tries to describe a specific image for the other player to identify out of a larger set of images in 30 seconds.
Needs:
Two different sets of images, and clones of these sets.
Something to stop P1 and P2 from seeing each other’s images. (e.g. a battle-ship style setup)
Clock/stop-watch that can take the time in seconds
Constructing the image sets:
The sets of images need to be of a moderate size (say 20 images) and the images themselves need to depict similar things. For example a set could consist of pictures of different monkeys, or of different (but similar) buildings.
(I read somewhere that it’s much harder for humans to tell the difference between two monkeys than two humans.)
The idea is for the images to be similar enough for any sufficiently abstract statement to include all of them, while also being different enough for a sufficiently specific statement to single out just one. Based on this it should be possible to fine tune the image sets to different levels of capability in being specific.
The images in each set should be numbered on the back (and its clones should be numbered in the same way) in order to allow quick identification of which image is which.
Setting up:
After being screened off from one another, each player is given a different set of images. Then they’re given an image from the clone of the other players set (so P1 will have a single image from P2’s set).
How to play:
P1 (after being given as much time as needed to think) tries and describe the image (s)he has from P2’s set in 30 seconds. After this P2 will attempt to work out which image P1 has from her/his set based on P1’s description. The roles are then reversed, P2 describes the image (s)he has from P1’s set and P1 tries to work out which image P2 has. Rinse and repeat the process until both players have identified the image the other player has.
Scoring:
Scoring would be done in a similar way to golf; the lowest score wins and every time a player isn’t successful in getting the other player to pick out the right image they get a point.
Notes:
Not allowing the player to see the images they’re trying to differentiate the image they’re describing from forces them to say what makes their particular image different from all other images. What it is that makes their monkey different from all other monkeys, rather than just the rest of the monkeys in the set. Along those lines players could occasionally get an image that isn’t part of the other players set, meaning that they’ll have to cover the basics of “It’s a monkey” and so on just to be sure.
Hopefully this will help improve conscientiousness too. By giving the players as much time as they need to think before they give their 30 second description it should get them into the habit of thinking carefully about how they’re going to say something before they actually say it.
(I’ve noticed part of the reason people fail to be specific is because they’re trying to rush their description of things.)
Phew… that took way longer than I thought it would to write.
Exercise/Game: Elevator-Pitch Descriptions
For two players. (P1 and P2)
Each player tries to describe a specific image for the other player to identify out of a larger set of images in 30 seconds.
Needs:
Two different sets of images, and clones of these sets.
Something to stop P1 and P2 from seeing each other’s images. (e.g. a battle-ship style setup)
Clock/stop-watch that can take the time in seconds
Constructing the image sets:
The sets of images need to be of a moderate size (say 20 images) and the images themselves need to depict similar things. For example a set could consist of pictures of different monkeys, or of different (but similar) buildings.
(I read somewhere that it’s much harder for humans to tell the difference between two monkeys than two humans.)
The idea is for the images to be similar enough for any sufficiently abstract statement to include all of them, while also being different enough for a sufficiently specific statement to single out just one. Based on this it should be possible to fine tune the image sets to different levels of capability in being specific.
The images in each set should be numbered on the back (and its clones should be numbered in the same way) in order to allow quick identification of which image is which.
Setting up:
After being screened off from one another, each player is given a different set of images. Then they’re given an image from the clone of the other players set (so P1 will have a single image from P2’s set).
How to play:
P1 (after being given as much time as needed to think) tries and describe the image (s)he has from P2’s set in 30 seconds. After this P2 will attempt to work out which image P1 has from her/his set based on P1’s description. The roles are then reversed, P2 describes the image (s)he has from P1’s set and P1 tries to work out which image P2 has. Rinse and repeat the process until both players have identified the image the other player has.
Scoring:
Scoring would be done in a similar way to golf; the lowest score wins and every time a player isn’t successful in getting the other player to pick out the right image they get a point.
Notes:
Not allowing the player to see the images they’re trying to differentiate the image they’re describing from forces them to say what makes their particular image different from all other images. What it is that makes their monkey different from all other monkeys, rather than just the rest of the monkeys in the set. Along those lines players could occasionally get an image that isn’t part of the other players set, meaning that they’ll have to cover the basics of “It’s a monkey” and so on just to be sure.
Hopefully this will help improve conscientiousness too. By giving the players as much time as they need to think before they give their 30 second description it should get them into the habit of thinking carefully about how they’re going to say something before they actually say it.
(I’ve noticed part of the reason people fail to be specific is because they’re trying to rush their description of things.)
Phew… that took way longer than I thought it would to write.