Experiential workshop value

My new adventure starts now as I begin to examine and question a few contemporary conceptions. Suppose things are not as they seem. Just suppose …

Suppose, in a pull marketing context, that we were to design a (social) space for “a joint process of delineating self and circumscribing vocational choices in a fundamental and gradual way enough for participants to be able to consciously choose (again): Making money doing what you love doing“.

Few of us know the limits of our abilities or courage, until they are actually tested. Plays simulate situations in reality and can give players an opportunity to practice new skills, or acquire new abilities and skills, and many a person solidified — or changed— career plans/vocation after participating in an experiential workshop that gives “close enough” field experience.

If we look at the various ways we have of learning, then reading appears to be at the bottom of the list. The information is difficult to absorb and understand, and retention tends to be short lived. Listening to a lecture appears to be far down on the list, almost as low as reading. Watching something being done, live, or video or on a film, is a little more effective. At the top of the list, when people participate in the activity to be learned, absorption is faster, more complete and more concentrated, and retention is much greater.

Experiential learning in the form of simulations just does the trick so much better. The other ways work for “rumoring”, an important ingredient of “pull marketing”.

Transforming idea: Two sets of two simulations

Two sets of double simulations can serve to teach us more about our psychological profile, in particular as it affects the public presentation of who we can and want to be. Occupational exploration is often confined to the zone of acceptable alternatives circumscribed at earlier stages of our development. So what if we were to create two sets of simulations to guide us from self-discovery to self-creation?

The first set of simulations, for example named “Explosion of the Phoenix”, focuses on fields of work within “known” or “familiar” spaces. The first simulation in the set, hunter/gatherer, can be perceived as simulating “the way men do business” (self improvement oriented, with a focus on gaining individual power, using push marketing). The second simulation in the first set, Brakteaten (see chapter 4), can then be perceived as simulating how women run economic systems (community or (extended) family oriented, with a focus on gaining individuating power, using pull marketing). The two simulations support a journey of self discovery.

The second set of simulations, let’s say “Hummingbird”, takes us out of those confinements and into freedom of choice, for a role congruent with the more internal, unique sense of self that participants wish to implement and project. In these two simulations, participants design the system of the future, their own role in it, and can check — for as much as possible in a simulated (controlled) environment — they have the most important resources needed to match their chosen role. We run the simulation twice on two consecutive days. First for rough creation, and a second time for refinement.

Midweek

Midweek exercises come in a range of general and specific exercises, and can, for example, include the use of

• “I am Okay“, “Five Freedoms“, “Essentials of Congruent Living“, and “Satir Change model” by Virginia Satir.
• Personality tests
• New skills practice IRL
• Facilitators on-line available every evening

Exercises are not obligatory, but are highly recommended (and lots of fun!)

Test driven Hummingbird development

1. Are you able to name one or more role alternatives?
2. Are your interests and abilities adequate for the role(s) chosen?
3. Are you satisfied with the alternatives you have identified?
4. Have you unnecessarily restricted your alternatives?
5. Are you aware of opportunities and realistic about obstacles for implementing the by you chosen role?

The system tests in Hummingbird are to be decided on by the group of participants by consensus. Suggestions for community value tests can be found in blue corn questions. Facilitators can stop the simulation at any time, and adjustments to behavior (person choosing again), or changes to chosen value tests (community choosing again) can be made. The simulation supports conscious self-(re)creation.

Note: This particular “Hummingbird” simulation can also be used as a scenario planning exercise, for example worst case scenario: assigning economic significance.

Timing and patterns

In a classroom or workshop situation, it is not possible to exactly replicate a genuine field situation in which people can participate. That is one of the many reasons why these simulations are not to be all lumped together.

I recommend we spread the two simulation sets over two consecutive weekends, a set per weekend, because that would give more gradual change.

We need time to recuperate, reflect, assign significance, choose again, and rebuild. In the midweek between the two weekends, people can choose to do some small exercises that help them prepare for and getting the most out of the Hummingbird simulation for self-creation.

It may be harder to sell, two weekends, then again, it might not. It’s “different” and stands out from “usual”. The people that are not put off by that, are the right people to come anyway (pretense-less pull marketing stance).

Related values

• Experiential Learning articles and critiques of David Kolb’s theory
• The disintegration of community in Luis Humberto crosthwaite’s el gran pretender – The technique of using multiple narrative voices provides for an understanding of a community’s plurality; at the same time, the community often speaks as one: at times, it acts as a reflective chorus; at others, it forms a singular voice that furthers the various plots and creates a seemingly contradictory, homogeneous identity
• Personal Brands, Identity and Perception Management – It is the shift from a culture of self-discovery, to a culture of self-invention.
• The role of experience and discourse in the development of understanding pretense – In the Explicit group, these experiences were talked about with explicit “pretend to” and “pretend that” language. In the Implicit group no such discourse was used, but only implicit discourse in talking about pretense versus real actions. The two training groups were compared with a control group that received functional play experience. After training, only the Explicit group showed improvement in their explicit pretense understanding.
• Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-creation (pdf) – Taken for granted and lost to sight. The joint process of delineating self and circumscribing vocational choices is so fundamental, gradual, and taken for granted that people typically cannot spontaneously “see” or report on it, despite its having a continuing and profound effect on their beliefs and behaviors. Some strong external stimulus, such as switching schools and peer groups (Note Nynke: such as participating in a workshop as described above), generally seems required to illuminate what’s been taken for granted.
• The unfolding self, illustrating Nynke’s focused (re)creation after Satir sculpting in the Satir Systems programme.