Homo Decidus: The card game that reduces bias and logical fallacies so your team can make better decisions.
For a while now I’ve become increasingly interested in the field known as decision intelligence, a somewhat flexible term from engineering which sits at the cross sections of social science, decision theory and the managerial sciences. Beyond its applications into AI, which is being put through its paces at Google under the careful watch of Cassie Kozyrkov, Google’s Chief Decision Scientist, it’s a field inspiring new ways of thinking about something we do everyday — make choices. If we can understand how to make better decisions, the thinking goes, then maybe we can teach machines to do the same.
Product Management, for the most part, is about choices. With limited time and resources, eventually, no matter the constraints, you have to make a choice — one thing instead of the other.
I believe to make decisions well, you need an environment where debates are commonplace and discussions are healthy and effective. Why? Because those debates surface new perspectives and ideas from the front lines of the organisation, where the relevant data to make good decisions lives, and you need that to make the best choices possible.
Most of us would aspire to work in cultures that encourage healthy and constructive debate — not bickering, mind-you. If we debate ideas well then we’re going to increase the probability that our decisions will be better for our teams, our customers, and likely for the organisations in which we work. The bad news? People are terrible at debating ideas. In theory, the more alignment you have across the organisation the better this gets, because their choice directions are facing the same way, but from my personal experiences, its still very difficult to find organisations that do this exceptionally well.
More interestingly, it appears that the higher up the organisation you go — the less logical the discussions seem to be and the more dire the consequences. From what I’ve seen, senior leadership debates often have more self-orientation than front line workers, which is perhaps where the toxin of insanity starts to set in. When you think about it, in an evolutionary way, self orientated decision making is perhaps why some people end up in leadership positions to begin with, so it kind of self selects for that sort of behaviour. But this is me just thinking out loud.
I’ve watched teams at various levels debate choices, whether it’s build feature X over Y, aim for this goal or that, let’s pick this market segment or that one, or whether we should hire more engineers or sales people . You’ll be put in positions to select an option eventually, make no mistake. But the debates which precede those discussions are usually polluted with logical fallacies and bias, which skew the final decision towards an outcome that doesn’t increase the probability of reaching your goals, but instead, points you towards some illogical outcome that nobody really wants anyway.
Human psychology served humans well in our early, evolutionary period, but has made contemporary decision making overwhelmingly problematic. We’re sadly a hot mess of bias and self motivations and it’s messing up our teams, our companies, and quite possibly, entire political systems too. My honest view is we have to find a way to increase critical thinking when debating ideas if we are to solve the worlds greatest challenges. Otherwise, we end up in a world where people keep thinking the world is flat and vaccines cause space dragons.
After being frustrated with this for a while, I asked a few managers on my team to see if they could find someone who could teach everyone how to have better debates, and through that, increase the overall critical thinking of the teams. I wondered, was it possible to create a culture where debating ideas was something we were perhaps known for and something we could get very good at? In an industry where intelligence pays such large dividends, the right choices do make all the difference — so why is it, I kept wondering, we spend so little time thinking about how we make them?
Most of us see good judgement as a mystic, etherial quality that someone either has or hasn’t got. But why couldn’t it be taught? Why can’t we teach decision making in the same way we teach things like leadership and do so in a way that doesn’t feel like a real-estate seminar?
The bad news was we couldn’t find anyone to do it, despite our best efforts — and we tried. I passed this task around the department for a while but everyone came up short, and in the end, after a long discussion with my friend and long time conspirator Dr. Brian Oakley, we talked about this idea of making a game that could be played which might solve the problem. Could we design a game that would;
- Reduce down bias by developing the ability to recognise it in others and oneself when making decisions.
- Help people identify logical fallacies more easily as they debated ideas.
- And through this, increase the critical thinking and overall decision intelligence of the teams.
Two things have happened since this original itch got under my skin. I’ve established a formal training program where we teach critical thinking and decision intelligence skills to cross functional teams, called, aptly, Decision Intelligence, and we made the card game, Homo Decidus, which is what I want to talk about now.
HOMO DECIDUS — The critical thinking game
Homo Decidus is a simple card game you can play at work with your team and it’s 100% designed to make you think more logically, critically, and lead to higher quality discussions about important issues. You need at least 4 people to play and the rules are (for now) as below.
I should note that as time goes on, the design and rules of the game might evolve but for now — this is how it works. We’re play testing it with various cross functional teams to get their feedback and measuring the effectiveness of bias and fallacy identification over time, but if you want to support this (and you should) you can order the game for yourself here.
Scenarios
The game is played in rounds and is essentially a game where you all debate ideas, and try to find flaws in arguments through simulated scenarios, with a few other variables thrown in to make the game a bit more fun and compelling.
At the start of the round, you draw a scenario card from the scenario deck. There are four different styles of scenarios.
- Abstract,
- Empirical,
- Comparative and
- Model.
These are the four formal styles of debates people can engage with and we’ve included a range of scenarios which should split a room and be challenging enough to discuss the topic with some level of contention. I’d also like to offer specific scenarios decks that relate to discipline's like engineering, design and product management that teams can buy, but that is for another day.
Within each debate style, there is also an Open scenario. If you draw this card, you simply make up a scenario that works for you.
These scenarios aren’t meant to be anything more than an arena in which to guide the discussions. You don’t need to win the argument to win the game. The scenario is there to just keep the topic and conversations focused, and allow you to make a case as best you can.
For / Against cards
Next, each player draws a For or Against Card. This determines which side of the argument you will represent. For example, if the scenario is “Wikileaks is bad for democracy”, and you select the For card, (visible with the big green tick), then you will make the case that Wikileaks is indeed bad for society.
You do not need to share what side of the argument you have drawn. The only requirement with ‘For / Against’ cards is that you must have at least one person on opposing sides of the arguments.
These cards are identified by the back of the card that has the brain with the line across it.
Actors
Next, each player draws an actor card. There are four types of actors in this game.
- A Liar
- Homo Decidus
- The Biased
- The Time Keeper
Within each game, there must be one liar, one time keeper, one biased, and the rest of the players will draw the Homo Decidus card. You will need to create a deck that people can draw from before the round starts to make sure you have the right amount of cards to play. So if you have 6 players, you’ll have 1 liar, 1 timekeeper, 1 biased, and 3 Homo Decidus cards in the actor deck.
Liar
The liar is a deceptive actor in the game and creates a scoring opportunity for the biased (Scores are explained later), who is mostly a target for the rest of the players. But the liar does represent a reality in most real life discussions — in that people tell half truths, or often, just make shit up. Within most organisations (and in life) people will often mislead others with information which isn’t quite true — and do so intentionally because it suits them or unintentionally because they are misinformed. The way to unpick this is to ask follow up questions and dive deeper to get to the root of knowledge a person has. Most people you will find when they are misrepresenting information rarely are asked follow up questions. Liars are, sadly, part of life, and you need to be able to construct debates and have meaningful discussions when mistruths are present, because they often are.
Your role as the liar is to perform the following
- Remain undetected as the liar, so you are best suited to tell your lies in convincing ways.
- Tell three lies about the topic in question.
The Biased
There are a huge amount of biases and logical fallacies in the deck. Before the game begins, you will need to decide how many bias cards you want to draw from. Each style of bias is identified by its unique colour and design style. The biases are grouped together. So all the biases that relate to “Something changing and you notice it”, look like this.
Before the round starts, you can either share all the potential bias cards around the table so people can read them and understand them, before randomly selecting one and placing it in the actor piles, from which people will draw, or for more advanced players, you can simply put one in and not give everyone the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the bias that will be in the mix first.
My advice is to share the biases that will be at play, to remove the problem of newcomers to the game. Otherwise, those who have played before will always tend to win. It also allows people to google biases or ask questions about particular ones should they not understand them before the round is played.
Over time, you will learn more and more biases and how to identify them — which is entirely the point.
With a selected bias card in the actor deck, someone will pull this card. They must keep this to themselves. Your job, as the biased player on the team, is to insert this bias into your argument. You are the one to find at the table.
Homo Decidus
Homo Decidus is the most objective, logical actor in the universe. Your job is to make your argument while actively listening to the other people very carefully, but your job is really to find the bad actors at the table who are making poor arguments.
One way people get better at critically analysing choices and decisions is to develop the muscle of carefully listening to the arguments people make and identify areas where bias or misdirection may be at play. This is the first step in combatting bias.
This game not only teaches you more about biases and logical fallacies, but encourages you to listen deeply to arguments as people debate ideas, which is a positive side effect. Half the trouble in meetings these days is people are too busy surfing the web while others talk. This game tries to assist, even marginally, with that negative behaviour too.
Your role at the table is to perform the following
- Identify the liar
- Identify the three lies that have been told.
- Identify the biased and what bias they represent.
Time keeper
The time keeper is there to keep the peace. You have additional responsibilities to perform while playing the game but you can also actively play and score points too. Nobody misses out.
Firstly, you must ensure that everyone gets to speak equitably — this is very important. If someone is quiet or not been heard from, your role is to allow them the space to talk and provide their thoughts. This is also, reflective of healthy debate. Often when we debate ideas, the most vocal, charismatic and bullish actors dominate the discussion. The timekeeper is designed to ensure that doesn’t happen and you hear from a diverse set of voices. If people are talking over one another or interrupting, your job is to manage that and balance it out. You are, when it comes down to it, the authority at the table.
Secondly your job is to define how much time you wish the game to be played. We recommend about 2 minutes per player. So if you have 4 players, we suggest running the scenario for no more than 8 minutes.
Next, your job is to keep score.
And finally, your job is to determine if the bias was represented or misrepresented. If someone has a bias and they have not demonstrated it accurately or have deliberately underrepresented it, you may deduct two points from the biased player. This is to ensure people aren’t being bad actors just to win and go undetected. So yes, you’re kind of like the bias ‘acting’ police.
Scoring
The game is played until a single player reaches 12 points. You can play as many rounds as you like in order to get to that position. Here are the possible ways to score in the game. (And again, our play testing will iron out some of the balances here for the final release). The final deck will have a short summary of scoring so its easy to tally up the points after each round.
Defensive points
- If a biased player represents their bias and goes undetected, they score 3 points.
- If a liar tells their lies and goes undetected, they score 2 points.
- If a liar is identified but nobody has identified all 3 lies, the liar scores 1 point.
Offensive points
- If a player (Homo Decidus or the Liar) identifies the biased player, they score 4 points. They must be able to name the bias.
- If a player (Homo Decidus or the Biased) identifies the liar they score 1 point.
- If a player (Homo Decidus or the Liar) Identifies the liar and their three lies, they get 4 points.
Negatives
- If you accuse someone of being the liar, and they are not the liar, you lose 1 point.
- If you accuse someone of being the liar and get the three lies wrong, you lose 1 point.
- If you accuse someone of being biased and they are not Biased, or you identify the wrong bias, you lose two points.
- If the timekeeper believes the Biased player did not correctly represent their bias, they may deduct two points from the Biased player.
If players are at zero, they cannot go into negative scores.
When you can score
You can stop the discussion at any point and simply say “I know who the liar is” or “I know who is Biased”. You then make your accusation and let the chips fall where they may. But if you get it wrong, and make false accusations, as the scoring system states, it will cost you.
If you get the biased player wrong, you can no longer make any more accusations for that round. You are out of the round.
If you accuse someone of being the liar, and they are not the liar, you can make no further accusations for that round. You are out of the round.
You can accuse someone of being a liar, to which they must respond if they are, but you do not have to identify the three lies at that point. The liar, if accused, must respond that they are the liar.
How to play (and buy) this game?
I’ve made a really simple pre-order available if you’d like to get a copy of these cards. Like I said, I’m still working on the gameplay of this but will neaten out the game before the final print run is complete. Anyway, I hope this was at least insightful.
