Permabanned
To clarify the second point above re. Feedback, I should have added "unless agreed to with the group when setting / negotiating the groundrules".
Of course there are sometimes grounds for exceptions. For example, as a suitable icebreaker for a training workshop designed to train 3rd year psych students in client-profesional relationship ethics (at a time when there were current media stories about violations of the same) I designed an ' Irish Brainstorm ' to produce an on-point conflict over how to respond in a single participant. Blindness as to the mechanism was important to the intended (and gained) effect. It worked well, and resolved well.
Irish Brainstorm: with the group arranged in a circle / horseshoe shape, give members seated at one side of the circle / horseshoe the task of coming up with a keyword each related to one topic. Simultaneously, have the opposite side do the same for a different (contrasting) topic. Have an aide for each side note down on the whiteboard responses as they occur. The last respondent (in the middle) is faced with a conflict on which topic keyword should be used. Resolve the conflict between the topics, starting with the discomfort (if any) produced in the participant in the mixed-response condition position.
Seed Topics: side 1. Romance and sexual behaviour keywords. side 2. Integrity and ethics related keywords.
Of course there are sometimes grounds for exceptions. For example, as a suitable icebreaker for a training workshop designed to train 3rd year psych students in client-profesional relationship ethics (at a time when there were current media stories about violations of the same) I designed an ' Irish Brainstorm ' to produce an on-point conflict over how to respond in a single participant. Blindness as to the mechanism was important to the intended (and gained) effect. It worked well, and resolved well.
Irish Brainstorm: with the group arranged in a circle / horseshoe shape, give members seated at one side of the circle / horseshoe the task of coming up with a keyword each related to one topic. Simultaneously, have the opposite side do the same for a different (contrasting) topic. Have an aide for each side note down on the whiteboard responses as they occur. The last respondent (in the middle) is faced with a conflict on which topic keyword should be used. Resolve the conflict between the topics, starting with the discomfort (if any) produced in the participant in the mixed-response condition position.
Seed Topics: side 1. Romance and sexual behaviour keywords. side 2. Integrity and ethics related keywords.
Last edited:
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
I think 70% of the people I work with are nice folk, probably 30% I would hang out with and about 3% of them I do hang out with. For me it makes for a nicer work day if I can have a nice chat/laugh about things with my co-workers.
