| |
Triple Volley Ball - mixed teams version
As shown in the diagram, there are three teams, and
three sections. However each team is split between two
sections mixing them with members of the other teams.
|
Thus in each section there will be members of competing
teams with uncommon goals. They must find some way to
cooperate for their common good. The rules will be similar
to regular volley ball, except that the score goes to the
team that does not have a member in the section that lost
the volley. In this arrangement, we eliminate dualism in a
very simple way, we have three teams play at once. We
simulate real life by creating situations where players must
cooperate with others who have opposing goals. Like real
life, "being on the same team" becomes a poorly defined
concept.
By analogy, think of your work situation. Can you always
tell if your manager is on the same team, or has the same
goals? What about your vendors, or customers? Is it not in
your own best interest to cooperate with them anyway?
|
|
Viewing from the top: the dividing lines
represent the nets, each colored dot represents a player
from one of three teams represented by three colors |
Triple Volley Ball - Two ball version
In this arrangement, there are three teams each in their
own section. This again is a minor change from dualism.
However, in this arrangement the game will be played with
two balls being volleyed at the same time. Points are scored
every time a team successfully volleys two balls at the same
time. The goal is no longer to force the other team to fail,
it is now to take advantage of success (two balls being
volleyed) when it comes your way.
The zero-sum mentality has been eliminated. Forcing the
other team to fail creates no intrinsic advantages for your
team. Spiking is no longer a strategy for success, since
stopping the volley scores no points.
Again, think of work. Do you do better by accomplishing
your own goals, or by forcing your competitor to fail?
|
|
Viewing from the top: the nets create
three sections with teams each in their own section |
|
Related Pages at this site:
Outside Links
|
| |
The Math, the Anthropology, and the Philosophy
American culture depends on dualistic thinking. Our
thinking is dualistic in that we persist into defining things into
two opposing groups: corporations vs. unions, men vs. women,
republican vs. democrat, plaintiff vs. defendant, empowered vs.
oppressed, our team vs. your team. We may recall the song from the
'70s that declared, "I've seen the world from BOTH sides now
...."
Similarly, our rituals are primarily zero-sum; there must
be one winner and one loser, for every gain there is a loss. For our
team to win your team must lose. For the defendant to win the
plaintiff must lose. For the poor to have more the rich must be
taxed. For a Republican to win a Democrat must lose. -Two sides, no
in between, no other options!
Dualistic thinking is very limiting, and zero-sum methods are unsustainable. These modes of thinking are not good for
problem-solving We must find new ways of thinking to face
the challenges of the future. To do this we must reflect our changed
thinking in our cultural rituals.
Various other cultures have rituals that are not based in winning.
Some cultures have rituals that are based in finding balance or
developing cooperation. Our culture has few of these. There are only
a few sports that are not dualistic and zero-sum. In mountain
climbing everyone who makes to the top and down again wins. Some do
it faster, some do it with less, some along new routes, but everyone
who makes it wins.
|
|