Did you assume that there was a logical sequence, try to find the “correct” answer or did you fill the box in a non-sequential fashion?

In this experiment there are a number of responses including these:

1. Perhaps suggested by the usage of ‘sequence’ earlier. You might repeat the first box, or an alternate version of any of the previous elements. There is in fact no logic to the series with the order and constituents being random.
2. An amalgamation or valence – for example, putting all the internal boxes together to make a new logical shape – such as, a face.
3. A non-corresponding response – for example, something completely new that doesn’t relate to any of the previous shapes displayed in the first three boxes.

Each one of these may well relate to how you like to generally respond to tasks.

One solution might be to use one nail to pierce the orange whilst over the cup and then gently squeeze the orange juice out of the hole made by the nail.

This experiment is inspired by the Dunkers experiment, which explores the notion of Functional fixedness.

This concept demonstrates a bias that means we may only perceive and use objects in the way they are more traditionally used, which, in turn may limit our ability to problem solve more effectively.

This experiment is inspired by Games Theory and follows on from the previous experiment.

There are 27 permutations. 60 possible outcomes.

Ironically you are more likely to get your desired outcome by not choosing your preference.

It can be useful to note the propensity to either rationalize a dilemma or to respond emotionally – what may appear on the surface to be the most intuitive response can prove, in the long run to be less beneficial to us and those around us, if not looked at more strategically.

This exercise is a light introduction to the concept of ‘positions, interests and needs’ and the art of negotiation.

• Positions are usually concrete statements, such, as I want 2 partitions.
• Interests are the answer to the question – why?
• Needs may be similar to interests but less tangible and are often aligned to our belief systems or identities.

Our experiment explores how quickly one perceives a resolution. For example, if two candidates are competing for promotion and their interests are different, i.e. one wants an increase in salary and one an opportunity to work abroad, a manager might increase the travel opportunities of one and give the promotion to the other.

A number of frequent responses include:

1. Keeping the arrows in a box configuration
2. Using the arrows outside of the boundaries of the box configuration, for example randomly on the page
3. Using the arrows to create logical patterns / sequences

Average number of combinations: 12-15 in 60 seconds.

In this experiment it can be interesting to note how quickly or slowly new shapes come to mind and whether one has more propensity for one particular style or approach than another.

Being aware of which propensity is most instinctive, can be a useful starting point for observation and discussion, when building a team or working on a project.

In this experiment people may perceive the middle shape as different when the surrounding shapes are covered, despite knowing that the shape is the same. Others may see no change at all.

Much work has been done on so called ‘gut’ responses, and their relationship with decision making, not least by noble prize winning economist Daniel Kahnerman.

It can be useful to reflect back on the ‘facts’ of a situation and differing perceptions, especially when experiencing conflicting viewpoints.

N.B – Participants have seen targets, clocks, train wheels, compasses et al