I was reminded of something similar by AspiringKnitter’s post below. There is an event in Science Olympiad called Write It Do It. One person is given a constructed object made out of LEGO, K’Nex, or similar. They write a set of instructions for how to reproduce the object. These are then given to a teammate who hasn’t seen the original object, who must use the instructions to reconstruct the original object. Seems fairly simple to adapt to a group setting—you could just split the group into two rooms and have them first write their own instructions and then try to follow the instructions of a partner in the other room.
This exercise and malicious idiot exercise differ in the “when” and “by whom”. With a malicious idiot, your errors are pointed out immediately and by somebody else. When writing instructions, your errors don’t come to light until your partner’s object doesn’t look like yours, and neither of you might notice until that point. It’s important to notice a lack of specificity both in others (so they don’t lead you astray) and in yourself (so you don’t lead yourself astray), so it would probably be useful to do both kinds of exercises.
There’s a lower-overhead version of the LEGO exercise involving pen and paper: person A draws a design on a piece of paper and hands it to person B, who writes instructions for how to reproduce that shape and hands them to person C, who follows them. Then compare A’s output to C’s.
Naturally, this can be done in parallel with N people, all of whom start out as As and end up as Cs.
Of course, this kind of depends on A not knowing what’s coming, since otherwise A just draws a circle or something.
There’s actually an online game called “Doodle or Die” for playing this. It being an online game, however, there are a disgustingly large number of players who break the chain (willfully or non).
I remember that! I think the biggest obstacle to clarity in the game is actually the rarity of artistic skill, not the vagueness of the written descriptions, though.
I’ve played a similar game in person—I think it was Telestrations. You get a word from a stack of cards, and try to draw that word. The next player guesses which word you were trying to draw, and the next player tries to draw that word (and so on). Fun party game.
Except that the aim of telephone pictionary is to produce hilariously incongruous lists of phrases and pictures, and the aim of this game is, well, the opposite.
Erm… posted this in the wrong thread, then “retracted” it -didn’t actually know what that button did. Oh well...
Except that the aim of telephone pictionary is to produce hilariously incongruous lists of phrases and pictures, and the aim of this game is, well, the opposite.
I was reminded of something similar by AspiringKnitter’s post below. There is an event in Science Olympiad called Write It Do It. One person is given a constructed object made out of LEGO, K’Nex, or similar. They write a set of instructions for how to reproduce the object. These are then given to a teammate who hasn’t seen the original object, who must use the instructions to reconstruct the original object. Seems fairly simple to adapt to a group setting—you could just split the group into two rooms and have them first write their own instructions and then try to follow the instructions of a partner in the other room.
This exercise and malicious idiot exercise differ in the “when” and “by whom”. With a malicious idiot, your errors are pointed out immediately and by somebody else. When writing instructions, your errors don’t come to light until your partner’s object doesn’t look like yours, and neither of you might notice until that point. It’s important to notice a lack of specificity both in others (so they don’t lead you astray) and in yourself (so you don’t lead yourself astray), so it would probably be useful to do both kinds of exercises.
There’s a lower-overhead version of the LEGO exercise involving pen and paper: person A draws a design on a piece of paper and hands it to person B, who writes instructions for how to reproduce that shape and hands them to person C, who follows them. Then compare A’s output to C’s.
Naturally, this can be done in parallel with N people, all of whom start out as As and end up as Cs.
Of course, this kind of depends on A not knowing what’s coming, since otherwise A just draws a circle or something.
This game is particularly fun when chained; A draws, B describes, C draws, D describes, and so on. Then you see how the shape transformed over time.
There’s actually an online game called “Doodle or Die” for playing this. It being an online game, however, there are a disgustingly large number of players who break the chain (willfully or non).
We’ve played this at meetups a few times.
It hammered in the illusion of transparency pretty well. (Puppy Trampoline → Drawing → If you jump on a dog you make it stronger).
I remember that! I think the biggest obstacle to clarity in the game is actually the rarity of artistic skill, not the vagueness of the written descriptions, though.
I’ve played a similar game in person—I think it was Telestrations. You get a word from a stack of cards, and try to draw that word. The next player guesses which word you were trying to draw, and the next player tries to draw that word (and so on). Fun party game.
Except that the aim of telephone pictionary is to produce hilariously incongruous lists of phrases and pictures, and the aim of this game is, well, the opposite.
Erm… posted this in the wrong thread, then “retracted” it -didn’t actually know what that button did. Oh well...
If you reload, you can delete a retracted comment.
retract
This is the party game called “Eat Poop You Cat” (pronounced “I’pupiukat”) or “Telephone Pictionary”.
Except that the aim of telephone pictionary is to produce hilariously incongruous lists of phrases and pictures, and the aim of this game is, well, the opposite.