Survival of the Fittest? Main MenuAn exploration of language, civic imagination and the nurturing of socio-ecological progress.Part I: On Separation and InterconnectionPart II: On the Constraints of Recurrent LanguagePART III: Simulation: External Stimuli on Decision-MakingPart IV: On the Act of Change-MakingPart V: Systems-Level Collective Imagination within Policy-MakingReferencesAndrea Mauro1033bfaebd35a3fbc7f649b39796df89956a88f6
12020-04-20T02:20:00-07:00PART III: Simulation: External Stimuli on Decision-Making34plain9874932020-05-14T13:44:14-07:00In order to explore the potential impacts of external conditions and narratives on one’s decision-making capabilities, two soundscapes created to embody opposite themes — cooperation and competitiveness — are heard by two groups while working on a task that requires collaboration in order to be completed.
The sounds for the soundscape with the theme of cooperation/collaboration aimed to foster trust, respect, and co-presence. Prompting participants to greet one another at the onset of the activity was not included in the indirect competition-oriented soundscape, for example. Also, natural sounds, the words of civil rights activists who participated in Mississippi’s Freedom Summer in 1964 and snippets from Luis Valdez’ short film based upon Chicano activist Rodolfo Gonzalez’s poem “ I am Joaquin” were a few of the chosen sounds to remind participants of these values (14). Eliminating stressors was a priority in this soundscape as well, due to the fact that stress often induces defense mechanisms and coping strategies that produce denial,distortion or disengagement (15).The competition themed soundscape sought to mimic common aural stimuli, based upon a survey of 18-24 year-olds. Repetitive questions relating to future work, compensation and economic security along with cacophonous distractions were some characteristics of types of common sounds. The senses of pressure that accompany these themes were created and maintained with the tempo of the ticking clock, office sounds, cellphone notifications and the like. Each table requires the two participants to accomplish the same task — put the puzzle pieces together. In order for this shared task to involve co-creating future possibilities, the puzzle itself is a re-working of James McKay’s artistic vision for a low carbon future, discussed in more depth in Part IV.
Participants are in effect tasked with putting this vision together. There are two piles of puzzle pieces on each end of the table, created via illustrator and (in a scenario where COVID did not shut campus down) cut using a laser cutter. Each pile of puzzle pieces contains one piece that belongs to the puzzle of the participant sitting across from them. In order for each participant to complete their puzzle, they must interact and collaborate with the person sitting across from them. Each table has different “external conditions,” curated via the opposing soundscapes mentioned previously. Hover over the exhibit image below to read more details on interactive elements. This exercise was based upon an arm-wrestling activity run by Law Professor Jennifer Reynolds at the University of Oregon. Dr. Reynolds is a visiting Professor at Harvard University Law School, and the activity was developed within their Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program. Every participant is tasked with (1) finding a partner, (2) assuming 'this' position (demonstrated hand link position with both elbows on the table), (3) explaining that this is a very easy exercise, you get a point if the back of your partner's hand touches the table and you want to get as much points for yourself as possible. You don't care about anybody else. After 10 -15 seconds, all participants were asked who forced their partner's arm to the table the most. One person in almost every group raised their hands with a smile . . . until Dr. Reynolds clarified that both "players" could have gotten more points; Getting as many points for yourself has nothing to do with beating your partner. In this exercise, both previously held assumptions about what the "arm wrestle" position means and how it is played along with the external conditions of telling individuals they do not care about anybody else crafts an outcome that could be exceptionally different if dialogue were more carefully curated.
This project, in effect, seeks to explore differences in outcome, given differences in external conditions. With minimal instruction and with pairs listening to the same soundscape, each person was instructed to complete the puzzle. Remember, to successfully complete the puzzle, each participant must collaborate with their partner. During this project's simulation, observations on the progression of action with minimal instruction were collected from 3 rounds (2 pairs per round). Comments from participants listening to the competitive Soundscape: “. .felt stressful,” “. . . I was matching the task to the tempo,” “I remember the ticking clock a lot,” “. . . I felt like I was working and trying to keep up and compete”, “It did stress me out a little, and that made me work faster to solve the puzzle” “war/soldiers,” “sound environment created a stressor within what felt like a comfortable threshold,” “the tempo affected my pace alot.”
Comments from participants listening to the more calming Soundscape: “I feel like you stole one of my pieces,” “We have to share . . . sharing is caring.”
It can be noted that to some degree, external aural conditions played a role in one's acitivty and pre-determined one’s ability to collaborate.
