"So first I proposed a clarification on that procedure," Professor Plum said as he and the other resident faculty of Blogistan Polytechnic Institute made their way from the wine cellar library where they'd spent the weekend drinking thinking on our motto of Magis vinum, magis verum ("More wine, more truth") to the hot tub faculty lounge for their weekly game where the underwear goes flying planning conference. "So when I proposed a procedure on clarifications the next turn, you all had to vote 'Aye' because of your vote on the clarification on procedures the turn before. And that was that. I won!"
Apparently they spent the weekend playing a game called Discussion, the ultimate meta-exercise. Except for discussing how they played the game, because a discussion of Discussion was the ultimate meta-exercise.
More below the fold....
First, however, let's thank last week's guest lecturers. Last Tuesday and Wednesday, Professor of Neuroholdemology Caractacus offered a two-part series on why and how social scientists have tried to define and measure intelligence. Last Thursday, senilebiker made his debut at the BPI lectern with a discussion of Middle Eastern promise, myths, and misconceptions. If you missed any, please read them.
Tomorrow Professor Caractacus continues his Things We Learned This Week series, exploring rank-ordered and fixed vs. growth models of intelligence. On Wednesday, MinervainNH makes her BPI lecture debut with a discussion of how Christmas evolved from winter solstice celebrations. As always, Chef will be around with beverages, and the Professor of Astrology Janitor will be a square with beveling.
Note: We currently have no one scheduled for Wednesday, December 30th, or for any Wednesday in 2010 (or 2011, come to think of it). If you would like to guest host Morning Feature, please volunteer in a comment below.
Which brings us back to Professor Plum. Discussion is a game I designed back in the 1980s as a joke. I played a lot of Dungeons & Dragons and similar group games in that decade, and most gaming groups had at least two so-called "rules lawyers" ... people who seemed less interested in playing the game than in the meta-contest of arguing about the rules.
Discussion was designed expressly for them, because the game was entirely about its rules: how to change them (procedures) and how to resolve disputes about what they meant (clarifications). Under one of the starting rules, the game ended when the players adopted a procedure or clarification that made it impossible to change any other rules. Under another of the starting rules, the player who proposed that procedure or clarification was the winner. But those two rules could be changed just like any others. In fact, they usually were; in most games the players agreed to end the game at a set time and created some scoring system to determine the winner.
In gaming terms, Discussion was almost the ultimate meta-exercise. Almost, because the game of Discussion was usually followed by a discussion of the game, and the discussion of the game usually lasted longer than the game of Discussion. Imagine gazing into your navel and finding it gazing into its navel, and you're getting the idea.
Or read any internet forum.
The first time we played Discussion, I was surprised that the post-game discussion was livelier than the game itself. Two players who'd said hardly a word during the game talked a lot afterward. I wondered if that contrast were due to a flaw in the starting rules and, if so, which starting rules I needed to tweak. After discussing it with them, and when I saw the same pattern in the next few games, I decided the liveliness of the post-Discussion discussions might have another cause.
During the game, the players couldn't be entirely certain what the rules would be at the end, how the rules might be interpreted, what strategies other players were employing, and whether a given proposal might help or hurt their own plans. With so much uncertainty, many players tended to be cautious.
After the game, the players were on more solid ground. Each player knew what he/she had said, heard, and intended. They were more confident in a discussion of the game than they were in the game of Discussion, so the meta-discussion was always livelier than the game itself.
So it is in almost any internet forum, and probably most discussion groups. People who say nary a word in an office meeting often have plenty to say around the water cooler later, and often enough they'll say they would have raised those ideas during the meeting, if only it had been run differently. Sometimes that's true - some discussions are run poorly - but often it's simply that we're more confident discussing ourselves than any other topic.
Take this diary, for example....
+++++
Happy Monday!