cons, then decide one final design by voting (show of hands for each
e. Assign each team a specific task to complete (e.g., one team could
work on the platform construction, one team could share the task
of constructing supporting arms, another team could tie straws together
for supporting structure, yet another team could work on the support
structure of some sort for the platform). Instructor should help in the
assignment of team tasks.
f. Encourage teams to coordinate frequently with each other to make
certain the design is proceeding as imagined. Keep teams posted on
time remaining.
g. Assemble the entire structure in center of room
h. With great fanfare, gently place individual weights on the platform
until it collapses from the load. How close to setting a new record did
the class come?
1. The entire procedure for designing and constructing the straw platform
should take about 50 minutes. Allow about 20 minutes to process the
exercise (next class if 50-minute class periods).
2. This is a very dynamic and sometimes raucous exercise. Groups often
become extremely tense, energetic, and enthusiastic about this
challenging goal. Note the team dynamics that take place during the
exercise for later discussion.
3. Points
a. Discuss how successful the groups thought they were. Could they
why did they do so well?
b. Discuss the importance of clear goals for teams to be successful. Did
each team clearly understand its task and how it fit together with the
project as a whole? Was the design clear to everyone?
c. Discuss how a challenging goal is necessary for teamwork to
flourish. Did the class accept the task as challenging? Did the overall
goal motivate the class? Were all participants seemingly committed
affect the overall team performance?
(“It’ll never work”)? Was there any optimistic attitude evident (“We
suggestion).
interdependence” (p. 155 text). Analyze in what ways this was
exhibited during the exercise.
4. VARIATION: Videotape the exercise and show portions to the class
when processing the exercise. This can be done best by stretching the
exercise over two class periods (one for building the bridge and testing the
results and one class for processing the exercise).
VI. Show a clip from Cool Runnings
A. Cool Runnings is a movie based on the true story of the Jamaican bobsled
team’s quest to compete in the Olympic winter games. Start the clip, which
runs about 10 minutes, toward the end of the film when the team is about
to make a bobsled run and Derice is imitating the Swiss team by slapping
his teammates’ helmets. End the clip with the Jamaicans at home cheering
and the sports announcer saying, “Watch out world, the Jamaicans are
coming.”
B. Points
1. The bobsled team has to have a high level of cohesiveness, collaborative
interdependence, have members with complementary skills, and work
as a unit to achieve a challenging goal.
2. Note team identity issues that arise. How does the team establish an
identity?
3. What difficulties must be overcome?
4. Discuss team empowerment.
5. Discuss team leadership.
VII. Show excerpt of Miracle, 2004 film about the 1980 U. S. Olympic hockey team that
defeated the Soviet Union in perhaps the greatest upset in sports history. Scene #7
(DVD) illustrates emphasis on We-orientation not Me-orientation for teamwork to
occur effectively. Also, “teamtalk” helps create team identification.
CHAPTER 8
Group Discussion: Defective Decision Making and
Problem Solving
I. “Sounds That You Hear” demonstration
A. Purpose: To distinguish between statements of inference and
description.
B. Time required: about 5-10 minutes
C. Instructions
1. Have students take out a sheet of paper and a pencil or pen.
2. Tell students to position their paper and writing implement in such a
fashion that they can write with their eyes closed.
3. Instruct students to close their eyes, remain silent, and “write down
all of the SOUNDS that you hear” when you say “go.”
4. Instructors should make several different noises with various materials (jiggle
keys, rustle paper, wad up a piece of paper, run a thumbnail over the teeth of a
comb, drop coins on a table, write on chalkboard).
5. Have students open their eyes and share what they wrote on their paper.
D. Processing
1. Note that almost everyone writes down what made the sounds, not a phonetic
approximation of the sounds themselves (“biff,” “bam,” thud,” “kapow”).
2. Inferences are defined in the text as “conclusions about the unknown based on
the known.” Conclusions about what made the sounds (keys, chalk on the
chalkboard, velcro, paper wadded, and so forth) are “unknown” because
students eyes are closed. They are guessing what made the sounds (making
inferences). They are conclusions about the unknown based on their previous
experiences with chalk, wadded paper, keys and the rest.
3. Make the point that inferences are not evil. Thinking is inferential. Our brains do
not just absorb data from our senses and do nothing with it. Our brains are
neurologically hardwired to draw conclusions based on sensory data. Inferential
problems occur when we don’t recognize that we are making inferences, not
merely describing the world “the way it is.” Descriptions are reports of what we
experience (“The woman sitting behind the desk is frowning.”). Inferences are
interpretations of factual descriptions (“The woman sitting behind the desk is
angry.”). When groups make faulty inferences based on poor quality information
and inadequate quantity of information problems become serious (collective
inferential error).
II. “Collective Inferential Error” exercise
A. Purpose: To illustrate the error correction function when groups work
together effectively to avoid collective inferential error.
B. Time required: About 20-25 minutes with processing.
C. Instructions:
1. Distribute the “uncritical inference test” (below) to all group members
(divided into term groups or ad hoc groups).
2. Have group members work together filling out the test.
3. Identify the correct answers with an explanation for each answer.
D. Processing the exercise
1. Find out how well each group did (normally very well).
2. Discuss inferences and collective inferential error.
3. Discuss the importance of the error correction function. Each group
member must take responsibility for the outcomes of the group.
Instructions: Read the following story carefully. For each statement that
appears below, circle either “T” if it can be determined from the information
provided in the story that the statement is completely true, “F” if information in the story
clearly indicates that the statement is incorrect in any way, and “?” if you cannot
determine from the story whether the statement is true or false (more information is
needed).
The Story: Pat Doyle was sitting behind the receptionist’s desk typing rapidly on a
computer. The Executive Director of the Atlantic Sports Equipment Company walked
briskly by the receptionist and hurried into the office, grunting a hasty “Good Morning” to
Pat. A man with a briefcase, which had “Wilson’s Sporting Goods” engraved on it, was
leafing through a copy of Newsweek magazine while waiting in a chair. A few moments
later the Director came out, made a beckoning motion, and said, “Hi, Jim! How’s the sales
racket?”
1. Pat, the Executive Director’s receptionist, was typing rapidly on a
computer.
T F ?
2. Pat was sitting behind a desk while she typed rapidly.
T F ?
3. Pat’s boss walked briskly by the receptionist’s desk.
T F ?
4. Pat was sitting behind the desk when the Executive Director walked
by and said, “Good Morning.”
T F ?
5. The Executive Director hurried into his office.
T F ?
6. A man with a briefcase was sitting in a chair.
T F ?
7. A man was reading a copy of Newsweek magazine.
T F ?
8. The man worked for Wilson’s Sporting Goods.
T F ?
9. The man was waiting to see the Executive Director.
T F ?
10. The story involves only three people: a receptionist, the Executive
Director of the company, and a salesman.
T F ?
ANSWERS: (All are ? All T answers are inferences)
1. You don’t know that Pat is the Executive Director’s receptionist.
2. Pat isn’t necessarily a woman.
3. Same as #1, plus you don’t know if the Executive Director walked by
the receptionist’s desk. The story says the Executive Director walked
past the receptionist who may or may not be Pat.
4. You don’t know if Pat was sitting behind the desk when the Director
walked by. Pat may have stood up or walked away from the desk at
that moment.
5. The Executive Director is not necessarily a man.
6. Most people sit in chairs, but some don’t (kneel, stand, etc.). This is a
good question to make the point about good and bad inferences.
7. The man was “leafing through,” not necessarily reading the
magazine. Could be reading snippets or spacing out entirely.
8. The briefcase said Wilson’s Sporting Goods. The briefcase doesn’t
necessarily belong to the man, and owning such a briefcase doesn’t
necessarily mean you work for the company anymore than wearing a
sweatshirt that says Harvard University means you are a student at
Harvard.
9. You don’t know who the man was waiting to see.
10. You don’t know if Pat is the receptionist. If not, then add Pat to the
list. You also don’t know if the man waiting in the chair and Jim are
the same person.
E. VARIATION: Have each class member complete the test independently.
Then lecture about collective inferential error. Have the class members
congregate in groups and examine their answers on the test together as
a group. Change any answers deemed incorrect. Correct the test. Is
there any error correction when working in groups following the
lecture? Another variation: Have half the class work on the test as
individuals without discussion of any sort and have half the class work in
small groups on the same test (out of earshot from the individuals).
Compare scores of individuals (average and range) with the group scores.
III. Excerpt from movie, Being There.
A. Show 6-minute clip from Being There, starting approximately 35
minutes into the film. The scene depicts a meeting between Ben, an
older wealthy industrialist (Melvyn Douglas), Bobby, the President of the
United States (Jack Warden), and Chauncey Gardner (Peter Sellers).
Chauncey is a guileless gardener with a mysterious past. His only
knowledge of the world comes from watching television and working in
a garden. Ben has taken Chauncey in but has no idea of his background
or from whence he came. He does not perceive Chauncey to be simple-
minded though; in fact, quite the opposite. Ben thinks Chauncey is a
commonsense sage.
B. Begin the clip when Ben and Chauncey enter Ben’s cavernous library
and Ben says, “Where the hell is he?” End the clip when Chauncey says,
“Yes, I’m glad he came, Ben.”
C. The President and Ben mistake Chauncey’s literal comments about a
garden for a metaphor on economic policy. It is a wonderful, and
quite amusing example of inferential error. They infer figurative
profundity from literal mundaneness.
IV. “False Dichotomies” exercise
A. Purpose: To help students understand what a false dichotomy is and why
it might be a problem for group decision making.
B. Time required: 5-10 minutes
C. Instructions
1. Have students take out a sheet of paper and a pen or pencil.
2. Tell students that you will read a list of words (LEFT column only on the list)
fairly quickly to them. They are to write on their sheet of paper in a column a
word opposite each term (e.g., Hot–they write COLD).
3. Ask students if they had any difficulty keeping up as the list of words
was given (normally they will have little difficulty).
4. Now read a list that includes the opposites (BOTH columns in list
below) and tell students to write in a column a word that fits in the
middle of each word pair (e.g., Hot-Cold—they write WARM).
5. Again ask students if they had difficulty (normally they will have had
great difficulty with the middle terms. Often they will keep writing
“average,” “sort of,” etc. which are not specific to any word pair).
LIST:
Right Wrong
Strong Weak
Stupid Smart
Short Tall
Old Young
Early Late
Beautiful Ugly
Quiet Loud
Popular Unpopular
Thin Fat
Aggressive Passive
Healthy Sick
Wealthy Poor
Happy Sad
Introvert Extrovert
Normal Abnormal
D. Processing
1. Students rarely have difficulty writing opposites instantly for the list
of words. They typically have great difficulty finding mid-terms
between opposites.
2. The opposites are dichotomies. They are false dichotomies because in
most instances such opposites do not describe what is mostly true.
Most people are not old or young, stupid or smart, ugly or beautiful,
and so forth. Thus, dichotomies describe a reality that is mostly false
to fact.
3. The difficulty we have finding mid-terms between opposites indicates
that our language reflects and nurtures our dichotomous view of the
world. This makes seeing alternatives to problems that groups try to
solve difficult because third and fourth choices between extreme
opposite choices do not easily come to mind. If groups think only in
terms of success or failure, cutting budgets or raising taxes, and so
forth, creative problem solving will be constrained by this narrow
vision of what is possible. What if groups neither cut budgets nor
raise taxes? Does this raise any alternatives? Breaking the mindset of
false dichotomies is a first step toward creative problem solving. How
we talk about problems and potential solutions (using the language of
many alternatives) is critical. False dichotomies freeze our thinking.
CHAPTER 9
Group Discussion: Effective Decision Making and
Problem Solving
I. “You Be the Jury” consensus exercise
A. Purposes
1. Provide participants with experience in the consensus method of
decision making.
2. Reveal the primary strengths and drawbacks of consensus decision
making.
B. Time required: 50-75 minutes (depending on length of court case)
C. Instructions:
1. Videotape a segment of “People’s Court,” “Court TV,” or a single
case dramatized on any courtroom drama series.
2. Break the class into groups (5-7 members).
3. Each group is a separate jury deciding the case presented.
4. Review the guidelines for consensus decision making (and
monitor the groups to make certain they stick to the
procedure).
5. All groups must come to a unanimous decision and meet the criteria
for a true consensus.
D. Processing the exercise:
1. Reveal the “actual” decision to all groups (how did the judge or jury
decide the case).
2. Discuss the consensus process with groups, concentrating on the
difficulties groups had achieving a consensus.
3. Ask the groups if majority rule would have worked better than
consensus. Why? Are there any drawbacks to majority rule?
II. Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (an activity originally suggested by Skye
Gentile, Cabrillo College instructor)
A. Obtain the DVD for season Six (2004-2005) of Law and Order SVU (should be
available from Amazon.com). It will contain an episode entitled “Doubt.” This
is a terrific episode that presents conflicting views on a rape case. There is
evidence supporting both the accuser and the accused; there is also reason to
doubt both the accuser and the accused. The jury’s verdict fades to black before
you get to hear the decision. Although a little graphic in the beginning, this is a
relatively tame episode in this regard.
B. Break your class into small groups of about 5-7 members (symposium groups work
well). Each group will act as a jury after watching this 40-minute episode in class.
Distribute the “LAW AND ORDER SVU EXERCISE” handbook to each group
member before showing the episode (see next page).
C. Allow about 15 minutes for jury discussion and final consensus decision (or super-
majority if consensus is not possible). Make sure that each jury realizes that it must
present justification for its decision based on evaluating the evidence by using the 5
criteria. VARIATION: seek a class consensus after each jury decides verdict.
D. Discuss the evidence with the entire class. Address each of the 5 criteria used to
evaluate the evidence. This is an especially engaging way to familiarize students
with the criteria discussed in the text for evaluating information critically.
E. Processing (evidence/information for discussion)
1. Credibility:
a. Accused: why did he have sex “against his will?” Why couldn’t he resist
her advances? He seems to coach his daughter during interrogation. Why?
Bite marks and bruises on his body can support either rough sex or rape.
b. Accuser: Why would she put herself through the trauma of a trial if she
isn’t telling the truth? Why would she agree to be poked and prodded for
evidence, an embarrassing procedure for sure? Why does she stay after the
rape allegedly occurred while the accused takes a shower? She lies
repeatedly—about death of her grandmother, about the male officer
sexually harassing her, perhaps even about the “suicide attempt.” How
credible are her explanations for the lies and retractions? Do her previous
lies necessarily mean she is lying about the rape?
2. Relevance: How relevant is her wearing a sexy teddy under her clothing when
she visits her professor? Is it relevant that she has had frequent sex
partners? Had sex with 2 men on the day of the “rape?” Was drunk when
the incident occurred? How relevant is the professor’s well-known
flirtations and sexual relations with his graduate students? Would it have
been relevant to know whether the accuser had a history with previous sex
partners of preferring “rough sex?”
3. Currency: Professor had no criminal complaints or charges, but did have a recent
sexual relationship with a graduate student. Accused had a lot of sex
partners in the past.
4. Representativeness: Charge of sexual harassment against the male police officer
is completely unrepresentative; he has 12 years in the SVU, works with
rape victims.
5. Sufficiency: Was the accusation of rape sufficiently supported?
interdependence” (p. 155 text). Analyze in what ways this was
exhibited during the exercise.
4. VARIATION: Videotape the exercise and show portions to the class
when processing the exercise. This can be done best by stretching the
exercise over two class periods (one for building the bridge and testing the
results and one class for processing the exercise).
VI. Show a clip from Cool Runnings
A. Cool Runnings is a movie based on the true story of the Jamaican bobsled
team’s quest to compete in the Olympic winter games. Start the clip, which
runs about 10 minutes, toward the end of the film when the team is about
to make a bobsled run and Derice is imitating the Swiss team by slapping
his teammates’ helmets. End the clip with the Jamaicans at home cheering
and the sports announcer saying, “Watch out world, the Jamaicans are
coming.”
B. Points
1. The bobsled team has to have a high level of cohesiveness, collaborative
interdependence, have members with complementary skills, and work
as a unit to achieve a challenging goal.
2. Note team identity issues that arise. How does the team establish an
identity?
3. What difficulties must be overcome?
4. Discuss team empowerment.
5. Discuss team leadership.
VII. Show excerpt of Miracle, 2004 film about the 1980 U. S. Olympic hockey team that
defeated the Soviet Union in perhaps the greatest upset in sports history. Scene #7
(DVD) illustrates emphasis on We-orientation not Me-orientation for teamwork to
occur effectively. Also, “teamtalk” helps create team identification.
CHAPTER 8
Group Discussion: Defective Decision Making and
Problem Solving
I. “Sounds That You Hear” demonstration
A. Purpose: To distinguish between statements of inference and
description.
B. Time required: about 5-10 minutes
C. Instructions
1. Have students take out a sheet of paper and a pencil or pen.
2. Tell students to position their paper and writing implement in such a
fashion that they can write with their eyes closed.
3. Instruct students to close their eyes, remain silent, and “write down
all of the SOUNDS that you hear” when you say “go.”
4. Instructors should make several different noises with various materials (jiggle
keys, rustle paper, wad up a piece of paper, run a thumbnail over the teeth of a
comb, drop coins on a table, write on chalkboard).
5. Have students open their eyes and share what they wrote on their paper.
D. Processing
1. Note that almost everyone writes down what made the sounds, not a phonetic
approximation of the sounds themselves (“biff,” “bam,” thud,” “kapow”).
2. Inferences are defined in the text as “conclusions about the unknown based on
the known.” Conclusions about what made the sounds (keys, chalk on the
chalkboard, velcro, paper wadded, and so forth) are “unknown” because
students eyes are closed. They are guessing what made the sounds (making
inferences). They are conclusions about the unknown based on their previous
experiences with chalk, wadded paper, keys and the rest.
3. Make the point that inferences are not evil. Thinking is inferential. Our brains do
not just absorb data from our senses and do nothing with it. Our brains are
neurologically hardwired to draw conclusions based on sensory data. Inferential
problems occur when we don’t recognize that we are making inferences, not
merely describing the world “the way it is.” Descriptions are reports of what we
experience (“The woman sitting behind the desk is frowning.”). Inferences are
interpretations of factual descriptions (“The woman sitting behind the desk is
angry.”). When groups make faulty inferences based on poor quality information
and inadequate quantity of information problems become serious (collective
inferential error).
II. “Collective Inferential Error” exercise
A. Purpose: To illustrate the error correction function when groups work
together effectively to avoid collective inferential error.
B. Time required: About 20-25 minutes with processing.
C. Instructions:
1. Distribute the “uncritical inference test” (below) to all group members
(divided into term groups or ad hoc groups).
2. Have group members work together filling out the test.
3. Identify the correct answers with an explanation for each answer.
D. Processing the exercise
1. Find out how well each group did (normally very well).
2. Discuss inferences and collective inferential error.
3. Discuss the importance of the error correction function. Each group
member must take responsibility for the outcomes of the group.
Instructions: Read the following story carefully. For each statement that
appears below, circle either “T” if it can be determined from the information
provided in the story that the statement is completely true, “F” if information in the story
clearly indicates that the statement is incorrect in any way, and “?” if you cannot
determine from the story whether the statement is true or false (more information is
needed).
The Story: Pat Doyle was sitting behind the receptionist’s desk typing rapidly on a
computer. The Executive Director of the Atlantic Sports Equipment Company walked
briskly by the receptionist and hurried into the office, grunting a hasty “Good Morning” to
Pat. A man with a briefcase, which had “Wilson’s Sporting Goods” engraved on it, was
leafing through a copy of Newsweek magazine while waiting in a chair. A few moments
later the Director came out, made a beckoning motion, and said, “Hi, Jim! How’s the sales
racket?”
1. Pat, the Executive Director’s receptionist, was typing rapidly on a
computer.
T F ?
2. Pat was sitting behind a desk while she typed rapidly.
T F ?
3. Pat’s boss walked briskly by the receptionist’s desk.
T F ?
4. Pat was sitting behind the desk when the Executive Director walked
by and said, “Good Morning.”
T F ?
5. The Executive Director hurried into his office.
T F ?
6. A man with a briefcase was sitting in a chair.
T F ?
7. A man was reading a copy of Newsweek magazine.
T F ?
8. The man worked for Wilson’s Sporting Goods.
T F ?
9. The man was waiting to see the Executive Director.
T F ?
10. The story involves only three people: a receptionist, the Executive
Director of the company, and a salesman.
T F ?
ANSWERS: (All are ? All T answers are inferences)
1. You don’t know that Pat is the Executive Director’s receptionist.
2. Pat isn’t necessarily a woman.
3. Same as #1, plus you don’t know if the Executive Director walked by
the receptionist’s desk. The story says the Executive Director walked
past the receptionist who may or may not be Pat.
4. You don’t know if Pat was sitting behind the desk when the Director
walked by. Pat may have stood up or walked away from the desk at
that moment.
5. The Executive Director is not necessarily a man.
6. Most people sit in chairs, but some don’t (kneel, stand, etc.). This is a
good question to make the point about good and bad inferences.
7. The man was “leafing through,” not necessarily reading the
magazine. Could be reading snippets or spacing out entirely.
8. The briefcase said Wilson’s Sporting Goods. The briefcase doesn’t
necessarily belong to the man, and owning such a briefcase doesn’t
necessarily mean you work for the company anymore than wearing a
sweatshirt that says Harvard University means you are a student at
Harvard.
9. You don’t know who the man was waiting to see.
10. You don’t know if Pat is the receptionist. If not, then add Pat to the
list. You also don’t know if the man waiting in the chair and Jim are
the same person.
E. VARIATION: Have each class member complete the test independently.
Then lecture about collective inferential error. Have the class members
congregate in groups and examine their answers on the test together as
a group. Change any answers deemed incorrect. Correct the test. Is
there any error correction when working in groups following the
lecture? Another variation: Have half the class work on the test as
individuals without discussion of any sort and have half the class work in
small groups on the same test (out of earshot from the individuals).
Compare scores of individuals (average and range) with the group scores.
III. Excerpt from movie, Being There.
A. Show 6-minute clip from Being There, starting approximately 35
minutes into the film. The scene depicts a meeting between Ben, an
older wealthy industrialist (Melvyn Douglas), Bobby, the President of the
United States (Jack Warden), and Chauncey Gardner (Peter Sellers).
Chauncey is a guileless gardener with a mysterious past. His only
knowledge of the world comes from watching television and working in
a garden. Ben has taken Chauncey in but has no idea of his background
or from whence he came. He does not perceive Chauncey to be simple-
minded though; in fact, quite the opposite. Ben thinks Chauncey is a
commonsense sage.
B. Begin the clip when Ben and Chauncey enter Ben’s cavernous library
and Ben says, “Where the hell is he?” End the clip when Chauncey says,
“Yes, I’m glad he came, Ben.”
C. The President and Ben mistake Chauncey’s literal comments about a
garden for a metaphor on economic policy. It is a wonderful, and
quite amusing example of inferential error. They infer figurative
profundity from literal mundaneness.
IV. “False Dichotomies” exercise
A. Purpose: To help students understand what a false dichotomy is and why
it might be a problem for group decision making.
B. Time required: 5-10 minutes
C. Instructions
1. Have students take out a sheet of paper and a pen or pencil.
2. Tell students that you will read a list of words (LEFT column only on the list)
fairly quickly to them. They are to write on their sheet of paper in a column a
word opposite each term (e.g., Hot–they write COLD).
3. Ask students if they had any difficulty keeping up as the list of words
was given (normally they will have little difficulty).
4. Now read a list that includes the opposites (BOTH columns in list
below) and tell students to write in a column a word that fits in the
middle of each word pair (e.g., Hot-Cold—they write WARM).
5. Again ask students if they had difficulty (normally they will have had
great difficulty with the middle terms. Often they will keep writing
“average,” “sort of,” etc. which are not specific to any word pair).
LIST:
Right Wrong
Strong Weak
Stupid Smart
Short Tall
Old Young
Early Late
Beautiful Ugly
Quiet Loud
Popular Unpopular
Thin Fat
Aggressive Passive
Healthy Sick
Wealthy Poor
Happy Sad
Introvert Extrovert
Normal Abnormal
D. Processing
1. Students rarely have difficulty writing opposites instantly for the list
of words. They typically have great difficulty finding mid-terms
between opposites.
2. The opposites are dichotomies. They are false dichotomies because in
most instances such opposites do not describe what is mostly true.
Most people are not old or young, stupid or smart, ugly or beautiful,
and so forth. Thus, dichotomies describe a reality that is mostly false
to fact.
3. The difficulty we have finding mid-terms between opposites indicates
that our language reflects and nurtures our dichotomous view of the
world. This makes seeing alternatives to problems that groups try to
solve difficult because third and fourth choices between extreme
opposite choices do not easily come to mind. If groups think only in
terms of success or failure, cutting budgets or raising taxes, and so
forth, creative problem solving will be constrained by this narrow
vision of what is possible. What if groups neither cut budgets nor
raise taxes? Does this raise any alternatives? Breaking the mindset of
false dichotomies is a first step toward creative problem solving. How
we talk about problems and potential solutions (using the language of
many alternatives) is critical. False dichotomies freeze our thinking.
CHAPTER 9
Group Discussion: Effective Decision Making and
Problem Solving
I. “You Be the Jury” consensus exercise
A. Purposes
1. Provide participants with experience in the consensus method of
decision making.
2. Reveal the primary strengths and drawbacks of consensus decision
making.
B. Time required: 50-75 minutes (depending on length of court case)
C. Instructions:
1. Videotape a segment of “People’s Court,” “Court TV,” or a single
case dramatized on any courtroom drama series.
2. Break the class into groups (5-7 members).
3. Each group is a separate jury deciding the case presented.
4. Review the guidelines for consensus decision making (and
monitor the groups to make certain they stick to the
procedure).
5. All groups must come to a unanimous decision and meet the criteria
for a true consensus.
D. Processing the exercise:
1. Reveal the “actual” decision to all groups (how did the judge or jury
decide the case).
2. Discuss the consensus process with groups, concentrating on the
difficulties groups had achieving a consensus.
3. Ask the groups if majority rule would have worked better than
consensus. Why? Are there any drawbacks to majority rule?
II. Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (an activity originally suggested by Skye
Gentile, Cabrillo College instructor)
A. Obtain the DVD for season Six (2004-2005) of Law and Order SVU (should be
available from Amazon.com). It will contain an episode entitled “Doubt.” This
is a terrific episode that presents conflicting views on a rape case. There is
evidence supporting both the accuser and the accused; there is also reason to
doubt both the accuser and the accused. The jury’s verdict fades to black before
you get to hear the decision. Although a little graphic in the beginning, this is a
relatively tame episode in this regard.
B. Break your class into small groups of about 5-7 members (symposium groups work
well). Each group will act as a jury after watching this 40-minute episode in class.
Distribute the “LAW AND ORDER SVU EXERCISE” handbook to each group
member before showing the episode (see next page).
C. Allow about 15 minutes for jury discussion and final consensus decision (or super-
majority if consensus is not possible). Make sure that each jury realizes that it must
present justification for its decision based on evaluating the evidence by using the 5
criteria. VARIATION: seek a class consensus after each jury decides verdict.
D. Discuss the evidence with the entire class. Address each of the 5 criteria used to
evaluate the evidence. This is an especially engaging way to familiarize students
with the criteria discussed in the text for evaluating information critically.
E. Processing (evidence/information for discussion)
1. Credibility:
a. Accused: why did he have sex “against his will?” Why couldn’t he resist
her advances? He seems to coach his daughter during interrogation. Why?
Bite marks and bruises on his body can support either rough sex or rape.
b. Accuser: Why would she put herself through the trauma of a trial if she
isn’t telling the truth? Why would she agree to be poked and prodded for
evidence, an embarrassing procedure for sure? Why does she stay after the
rape allegedly occurred while the accused takes a shower? She lies
repeatedly—about death of her grandmother, about the male officer
sexually harassing her, perhaps even about the “suicide attempt.” How
credible are her explanations for the lies and retractions? Do her previous
lies necessarily mean she is lying about the rape?
2. Relevance: How relevant is her wearing a sexy teddy under her clothing when
she visits her professor? Is it relevant that she has had frequent sex
partners? Had sex with 2 men on the day of the “rape?” Was drunk when
the incident occurred? How relevant is the professor’s well-known
flirtations and sexual relations with his graduate students? Would it have
been relevant to know whether the accuser had a history with previous sex
partners of preferring “rough sex?”
3. Currency: Professor had no criminal complaints or charges, but did have a recent
sexual relationship with a graduate student. Accused had a lot of sex
partners in the past.
4. Representativeness: Charge of sexual harassment against the male police officer
is completely unrepresentative; he has 12 years in the SVU, works with
rape victims.
5. Sufficiency: Was the accusation of rape sufficiently supported?