Action Thinking

I told them about John's session on food labels and improving our eating before turning the problem over to them, to solve and illustrate on an A5 card.

Minutes later we had a class set of a broad range of solutions to analyse.




How could we organise them so that we can make informed decisions on selecting the ones we like?
By creating pairs of opposites, the kids created several different spectrums to organise and compare their solutions.

cheap - expensive
realistic - futuristic
simple - complex
cheap - expensive
forced - free will
effective - ineffective
humane - inhumane

all of these were child generated, though I'd have added humane if it hadn't come up.
They were powerful lenses through which to view the qualities of each solution.

Human continuum: Handing out the cards after a shuffle put each student with someone else's solution to interpret and justify as they spread out across the room for each continuum, reasoning and discussing as they went.



Which were the values we held most important?
We decided on humane and effective.

Then we mapped them together on a single chart using two axis.



Some clear patterns emerged. Our solutions were either very humane, OR very effective.
How could we get it perfect?
What solution, imaginary or otherwise would take the top right spot in the graph?

We reviewed our ideas again using problem analysis to see just what problem we were each solving with our ideas. That will be in the next post.

It's my turn for news, so I share a travel story.

I’m in Luang Prabang in Laos, at the foot of a long set of stairs that lead to a hilltop temple. An old woman is selling young birds, each cramped in their own tiny bamboo cages. it’s good luck she says to let them free at the top of the hill. No thanks. I am resolute. But I turn it to the group..

What would YOU do?

They arrange themselves in a human continuum across the room.. from an absolute ‘Yes I’d buy one’ to an absolute ‘No'. I’ll want to know why, I say. There’s magic in the why. First we hear from the two extremes.

“I don’t believe in luck, so it’s a waste of money.” Says the farthest 'No'.

 The opposite 'Yes' replies. “I’d want to set the bird free if it was in a small cage.”

The debate begins.. “But you’re not really helping because she’d just get another bird and put it in a cage!!”

Without prompt.. people begin to move about.. changing position.. changing opinion.

“Why did you move.. what’s changed for you?” More magic.. more distinctions in reasoning. The clusters are deceptive. Each person has their own unique way through the problem.

Someone walks the length of the class to sit firmly in the ‘No’.. there are cheers of support from those now a little more cramped by the door.

Careful.. When we make these positions a social group, we add a new value to the equation. How could the need to belong to a group change your reasoning? Are you all there for the same reasons?

I add new detail to the story: When another tourist rejects the old lady’s bird cage she throws it carelessly on the ground, hurting the poor bird inside. ( A clever technique to encourage a purchase.. )

More debate and eventually the spread of the human continuum settles.. now the scales tilting a little more heavily to the ‘No’ than when we started.

So, now.. Imagine amplifying your opinion through time over the next two weeks.

Did you buy the bird? Then imagine a steady increase to the old lady’s bird sales over the next two weeks till eventually she’s selling scores every day.

Didn’t buy? Then imagine the sales dwindling to nothing in the same time frame.

When you amplify your short term, small scale decision does the result still balance with your original reasoning?

Compare the future outcomes.

The discussion continues.. but an observation has come from the one who doesn’t believe in luck. They've drifted in from the extreme ‘No’ and now sit closer to the middle. “ If her sales stop, then we know that birds will die because she doesn’t take care of them.. because if no-one buys them she'll let them die…… but then she won’t buy any more birds so no more birds will be hurt.”

Brilliant. So: If you chose to stop her sales or not, how do you balance the certainty of the dead birds with the unknowable suffering of many birds in the future?

But surely, that’s enough temple splitting for a day. Time to run about in the sun.

Because it’s all about balance.