Natasha Gill wrote:

"I always run a simulation with `coaches' – `real' negotiators, military/security officials, diplomats or analysts who, in addition to helping create the materials, are onsite throughout the simulation to help participants work through the issues. After watching the simulation evolve, the coaches almost always make the same comment: they say they are astonished and disturbed at the non-difference between novices and, well, themselves and other `real `actors. In contrast to Ellis point that top level experts are `undoubtedly better than non high-levels at depicting the behavior of their actual peers.'"


Rex:
I promised to tell you about my 1986 UCBerkeley simulation experience and Natasha's observation above on Paxsim reminded me. It was her comment that the experts watching her simulation were `disturbed' that novices behaved in similar ways to the real actors.

I imagine the reasons are similar to those of the Berkeley professors in the International Studies department. First the results were unexpected. Second, the implication was that given a similar set of challenges, behaviors will be similar, which suggested that the experts' behavior was dictated more by circumstances that would illicit similar responses from anyone regardless of their background knowledge. In other words, whatever knowledge and experience the experts brought to the situation, it may not be generating different behaviors and decision-making from the novices. Disturbing at a fairly deep level for an expert, and astonishing when unexpected.

I was asked to develop some simulations demonstrating some of the dynamics of democratic forms of government vs dictatorships, both directly and with contextual games exploring the dynamics of Latin American governments. They were particularly interested in students understanding how the priorities and values held by people direct what form of government they have.

I taught government in high school. Early on, a student had asked the inevitable question: "Why do we have to take this class?" And of course, as seniors they had to pass it to graduate. I didn't know why it was specifically required, so I looked it up. State legislatures made government and US History required classes for graduation after the Korean War where some American POWs were induced to renounce democracy and the US. The methods used by the North Koreans were diabolical and relevant, so I described this to the Berkeley profs and said I could create a simulation in class around this. This was the simulation following some of the things the North Koreans did, with my own additions: [The professors were sure that this simulation `would work' to demonstrate the dynamics they desired, but they were game.]

The professors handed out a survey the first day of class about government, one of the questions being "Do you believe Democracy is the best form of government in the world?" Nearly 100% said yes. The next class, the professors told the students that as this was a class about government that they would be asked to take responsibility for operations in class. Student leaders would be responsible for giving participation points [twenty percent of their grade] as well as points for attendance. The student leaders would also be responsible for operations in the class such as handing out and collecting papers and the behavior of the other students. The professors told students they wanted this system to be efficient.

Then the professors asked for two leaders and sat down. More than 80% of the classes had leaders volunteer with no discussion, no voting. They just presented themselves to the professor as the leaders. The professors told the leaders, in front of the class, that they could chose sub-leaders for groups of students if they wanted. Some did, some didn't.

Then the class was told that the leaders would be given X amount of participation points and attendance points to give out, enough to give each student 5 points per class for participation and 1 point for attendance. Here we did what the North Koreans did: We gave the leaders 30% more participation and attendance points than needed. The professors told the leaders they could use or not use the points as they saw fit. He expected things to run efficiently and if he had to intervene to get things done, they would lose points.

In 90 percent of the classes, the following happened: The leaders gave themselves and sub-leaders more points from the extras. Students found the leaders `repressive' but said nothing, even when the often very unequal points were posted. Students that challenged the leaders either lost points or were bribed with points to remain quiet.
Students complained to the professor, who referred them back to the leaders. In about a third of the classes, students asked the professors how they could `get rid of the leaders'. [The students' phrase in most cases.] This possibility was anticipated from reading about the POW camps. The instructions were that if five students stood and declared the leader `dead', they were removed. However, if they did this, the leader would not receive any participation points. The students came up with the word `assassination.' And of course, nothing happened in class until new leaders came forward. At times, that didn't happen very quickly…

This was the situation in all but one class out of ten after just two weeks or six class sessions. The professors were `astonished and disturbed' by the results. So were the students. A number came to the department head to complain. And of course, the students from different classes were talking, so things like assassinations `caught' on and leaders from different classes were trading `techniques' to hold power and avoid being assassinated. Half the classes had assassinations. In the POW camps, in all but two cases, it was simply intimidation or a physical assault that led to the leader `stepping down.'

The simulation was ended after two weeks, and this process was scripted too, by the professors announcing the end of the `system', even though unstated, students thought it would go on for the entire class.

The basic point of the simulation was that if a group accepts `efficiency' as the prime value in a government, instead of `fairness', some form of dictatorship will usually follow. While the professors `knew' this intellectually, it was quite another thing to see it in action among democratic-loving students. They were not only disturbed by the effectiveness of the simulation, but now they had to `turn it around' so students wouldn't be `psychically damaged' as one professor put it.

We scripted that too. The professors pointed out that the democratic process wasn't used to chose the leaders or run the class, though no stipulation was made about the form of governance. They all either acquiesced to the uneven distribution of points or turned to assassination to change leaders. It was also pointed out that this was done even when they felt that democracy was the best form of government.

Finally the professors pointed out how they had created the situation by requiring `efficiency' and that the students' behavior was quite normal. Then a debriefing was done asking why they hadn't chosen democracy, and what they would have to have had to do differently to have created a democratic form of government in class. The one class that did chose the democratic form was used as an example. It started by someone volunteering to facilitate the voting rather than be a leader…

Some of the unexpected benefits from this was that several classes wanted to continue with the `self-government' in class along democratic lines, which proved a rich source of further insights into government and democracy. Overall, the results for the students were very positive.

Surveys at the end of the courses where this simulation and other the other simulations were run received very high ratings and a large number of comments from students. But powerful learning is scary. Several professors continued to use the simulations afterwards, but as many declined, feeling the possible harm or as they put it `uncontrollable' aspects of the process was not something they felt `comfortable with.' I used the "POW Camp" simulation with my high school students after this with what I and they felt was success, but I do understand the professors' reluctance.

Of course, I was just learning the craft in 1986, so that is part of this too. I was focused strictly on the simulation, not the who and what of the clients and culture. I delivered an Altoid strength simulation, what they asked for, without realizing that it is an acquired taste...

The professors were used to 'manipulating' information and knowledge, not students' experience, not at this level. The simulations took them into unknown waters where they were novices, or at least felt like it.

So, that was two decades ago, but those 'disturbing' possibilities to simulations are still inherent in the power they can deliver.

Best Regards, Bill

Bill:

Fascinating case study! I can see how it would be problematic from a teaching point of view (in terms of the stresses it might induce among students), but it certainly made its point.

In one of my first ever classes in the late 1980s, when lecturing on South African apartheid I would allow 20% of the students (allocated by the first letter of the surname) to occupy the front 60% of the classroom, and required the remaining 80% to sit in the back 40% of the class (where there was less than one chair per person, and many ended up sitting on the floor).

The teaching assistants enforced the segregation, checking student IDs when necessary. I generally ignored questions coming from the back of the class, but allowed those in the front to fully engage in the class discussion.

An hour of sitting cramped up like that made the point far better than my lecture did!

cheers,

Rex

On 2012-09-03, at 12:34 PM, billh512002 wrote:




Rex:
I promised to tell you about my 1986 UCBerkeley simulation experience and Natasha's observation above on Paxsim reminded me. It was her comment that the experts watching her simulation were `disturbed' that novices behaved in similar ways to the real actors.

I imagine the reasons are similar to those of the Berkeley professors in the International Studies department. First the results were unexpected. Second, the implication was that given a similar set of challenges, behaviors will be similar, which suggested that the experts' behavior was dictated more by circumstances that would illicit similar responses from anyone regardless of their background knowledge. In other words, whatever knowledge and experience the experts brought to the situation, it may not be generating different behaviors and decision-making from the novices. Disturbing at a fairly deep level for an expert, and astonishing when unexpected.

I was asked to develop some simulations demonstrating some of the dynamics of democratic forms of government vs dictatorships, both directly and with contextual games exploring the dynamics of Latin American governments. They were particularly interested in students understanding how the priorities and values held by people direct what form of government they have.

I taught government in high school. Early on, a student had asked the inevitable question: "Why do we have to take this class?" And of course, as seniors they had to pass it to graduate. I didn't know why it was specifically required, so I looked it up. State legislatures made government and US History required classes for graduation after the Korean War where some American POWs were induced to renounce democracy and the US. The methods used by the North Koreans were diabolical and relevant, so I described this to the Berkeley profs and said I could create a simulation in class around this. This was the simulation following some of the things the North Koreans did, with my own additions: [The professors were sure that this simulation `would work' to demonstrate the dynamics they desired, but they were game.]

The professors handed out a survey the first day of class about government, one of the questions being "Do you believe Democracy is the best form of government in the world?" Nearly 100% said yes. The next class, the professors told the students that as this was a class about government that they would be asked to take responsibility for operations in class. Student leaders would be responsible for giving participation points [twenty percent of their grade] as well as points for attendance. The student leaders would also be responsible for operations in the class such as handing out and collecting papers and the behavior of the other students. The professors told students they wanted this system to be efficient.

Then the professors asked for two leaders and sat down. More than 80% of the classes had leaders volunteer with no discussion, no voting. They just presented themselves to the professor as the leaders. The professors told the leaders, in front of the class, that they could chose sub-leaders for groups of students if they wanted. Some did, some didn't.

Then the class was told that the leaders would be given X amount of participation points and attendance points to give out, enough to give each student 5 points per class for participation and 1 point for attendance. Here we did what the North Koreans did: We gave the leaders 30% more participation and attendance points than needed. The professors told the leaders they could use or not use the points as they saw fit. He expected things to run efficiently and if he had to intervene to get things done, they would lose points.

In 90 percent of the classes, the following happened: The leaders gave themselves and sub-leaders more points from the extras. Students found the leaders `repressive' but said nothing, even when the often very unequal points were posted. Students that challenged the leaders either lost points or were bribed with points to remain quiet.
Students complained to the professor, who referred them back to the leaders. In about a third of the classes, students asked the professors how they could `get rid of the leaders'. [The students' phrase in most cases.] This possibility was anticipated from reading about the POW camps. The instructions were that if five students stood and declared the leader `dead', they were removed. However, if they did this, the leader would not receive any participation points. The students came up with the word `assassination.' And of course, nothing happened in class until new leaders came forward. At times, that didn't happen very quickly…

This was the situation in all but one class out of ten after just two weeks or six class sessions. The professors were `astonished and disturbed' by the results. So were the students. A number came to the department head to complain. And of course, the students from different classes were talking, so things like assassinations `caught' on and leaders from different classes were trading `techniques' to hold power and avoid being assassinated. Half the classes had assassinations. In the POW camps, in all but two cases, it was simply intimidation or a physical assault that led to the leader `stepping down.'

The simulation was ended after two weeks, and this process was scripted too, by the professors announcing the end of the `system', even though unstated, students thought it would go on for the entire class.

The basic point of the simulation was that if a group accepts `efficiency' as the prime value in a government, instead of `fairness', some form of dictatorship will usually follow. While the professors `knew' this intellectually, it was quite another thing to see it in action among democratic-loving students. They were not only disturbed by the effectiveness of the simulation, but now they had to `turn it around' so students wouldn't be `psychically damaged' as one professor put it.

We scripted that too. The professors pointed out that the democratic process wasn't used to chose the leaders or run the class, though no stipulation was made about the form of governance. They all either acquiesced to the uneven distribution of points or turned to assassination to change leaders. It was also pointed out that this was done even when they felt that democracy was the best form of government.

Finally the professors pointed out how they had created the situation by requiring `efficiency' and that the students' behavior was quite normal. Then a debriefing was done asking why they hadn't chosen democracy, and what they would have to have had to do differently to have created a democratic form of government in class. The one class that did chose the democratic form was used as an example. It started by someone volunteering to facilitate the voting rather than be a leader…

Some of the unexpected benefits from this was that several classes wanted to continue with the `self-government' in class along democratic lines, which proved a rich source of further insights into government and democracy. Overall, the results for the students were very positive.

Surveys at the end of the courses where this simulation and other the other simulations were run received very high ratings and a large number of comments from students. But powerful learning is scary. Several professors continued to use the simulations afterwards, but as many declined, feeling the possible harm or as they put it `uncontrollable' aspects of the process was not something they felt `comfortable with.' I used the "POW Camp" simulation with my high school students after this with what I and they felt was success, but I do understand the professors' reluctance.

Of course, I was just learning the craft in 1986, so that is part of this too. I was focused strictly on the simulation, not the who and what of the clients and culture. I delivered an Altoid strength simulation, what they asked for, without realizing that it is an acquired taste...

The professors were used to 'manipulating' information and knowledge, not students' experience, not at this level. The simulations took them into unknown waters where they were novices, or at least felt like it.

So, that was two decades ago, but those 'disturbing' possibilities to simulations are still inherent in the power they can deliver.

Best Regards, Bill




-------------------------------------------------
Rex Brynen
Professor
Department of Political Science
McGill University
855 Sherbrooke Street
Montreal (Quebec) H3A 2T7

(office location: #301, 3465 Peel)

office: (514) 398-4400 x 00634 (NOTE: new number)
home/office: (514) 457-9756
cell: (514) 575-7721
fax: (514) 457-8109

Skype: RexBrynen
Twitter: @rexbrynen

department webpage: http://www.mcgill.ca/politicalscience/faculty/brynen/
ICAMES: http://www.mcgill.ca/icames
PRRN: http://www.prrn.org (Palestinian refugees)
PaxSims: http://paxsims.wordpress.com (conflict simulations)