I saw this explained well in a book called The Phoenix Project. The book talks about what software development can learn from decades of manufacturing process improvements.
This blog post shows the graph presented by the book, which makes a similar but more general point to yours and further formalizes the Slack concept.
Seems it’s hard to pin down the source of this concept, but it apparently follows from Little’s Law.
Split the class into groups and get each group working on something they all will easily become invested in. I’m thinking have them spend 10 minutes creating/building something as a group, and make it a competition (bragging-rights only) to solidify the investment.
Before anyone has enough time to finish, offer $100 to the first person to destroy their group’s creation. (Obviously, it would be best if doing so could be done in a quick motion: like if they were building a large tower with jenga blocks or something.)
After 5 seconds, pause and have each person self-evaluate: did they Check Consequentialism? Then, group up again to rescue consequentialist reasons to act/not act from non-consequentialist reasons for doing so. i.e. “I don’t want to do selfish things” → “I don’t want to look selfish in front of my peers”.
I’m wondering if this site might be of use for this: http://curiousreef.com/
Hi. The Harry Potter fanfic hooked me. Excited to see where this takes me.
References seem to be missing? It’s too bad the new site doesn’t have a good way to do footnotes.
This is really great stuff, thanks for posting—I’ve only had time to skim, but I plan to start at the beginning and give some more detailed feedback. This is all right in line with what I’ve increasingly felt is missing from my (unfortunately) casual study of rationality: putting concepts to practice.