Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: ebfe15f0dc0a51bcc4f636f840b4f3a046d18d6d8b069f2797eaf5b814eee4ee

# Embracing Contradictions

Participants examine verbal paradoxes, identify internal contradictions in their own habits or values, and explore how public policies navigate competing truths. The group records these pairs on a structured template to build comfort with complexity.

**Time:** 60 minutes. Matches the full 60-minute duration outlined in the source activity (10 min statements, 20 min personal reflection, 20 min policy discussion, 10 min debrief).
**People:** 4 to 24. Pairs or small groups of 3 to 4, finishing in whole-group sharing

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Identify opposing perspectives and personal or systemic contradictions without forcing an immediate resolution.
**Use it when:** Use during dialogue training, policy discussions, or team development when participants encounter polarization or struggle with nuanced problems.
**Skip it when:** Skip when an immediate operational decision requires consensus on a single course of action, or when trust is too low for personal reflection.

## Materials and tools

- One printed Contradiction Worksheet per participant, or blank paper
- Pens or pencils
- Optional display screen and speakers for video clip

## Before participants arrive

1. Arrange seating into pairs or tables of 3 to 4.
2. Print worksheets or prepare a whiteboard prompt showing the contradiction chart layout.
3. Test video and audio if using the optional Catch-22 clip.

## Say this to open

Contradictions can feel uncomfortable because we often try to force a simple answer. Today we will explore paradoxes across three levels: familiar sayings, our own habits, and public policies. Our goal is not to eliminate contradiction, but to see what opposing ideas teach us about complex situations.

## How to run it

### 1. Explore contradictory statements (10 minutes)

Show or read the list of paradox statements (for example, 'You have to spend money to make money' or 'Don't get in the water until you learn to swim'). In small groups, participants pick two statements, explain how both sides can hold truth at once, and share how it feels to confront contradictory logic. Stop at 10 minutes.

### 2. Chart personal contradictions (20 minutes)

Give participants five minutes of silent writing to complete Part 1 of the Contradiction Worksheet, noting two things about themselves that seem opposite (for example, 'I love spontaneous road trips, but I need an organized daily schedule'). For the remaining 15 minutes, invite participants to share one example with their group, discussing what holding these dual traits reveals. Anyone may pass or share a light habit instead of a deeply personal value.

### 3. Examine contradictions in policy (20 minutes)

Small groups choose one policy topic from the provided list (such as environmentalism, policing, or disability accommodation) and complete Part 2 of the worksheet. They identify two valid, competing priorities within that policy area and document how administrators try to balance them. Call time at 20 minutes.

### 4. Debrief full room (10 minutes)

Reconvene the full room. Call on three groups to share one policy tension they mapped. Ask two debrief questions about questioning assumptions and holding opposing ideas, keeping comments brief.


## Debrief questions

- How did writing down a personal contradiction change the way you view your own habits?
- When examining policy, what happens when we assume people with opposing views are responding to a real contradiction rather than bad faith?
- How can holding two opposing ideas in mind help a group make better decisions?

**Finished output:** Completed contradiction worksheets detailing personal tensions and balanced policy paradoxes.

## Remote

Use breakout rooms of 3 to 4 people. Provide the Contradiction Worksheet via a shared digital document or form. Keep main instructions and countdown timers in the main room chat. Regroup in the main room for video playback and whole-group debrief.

## Hybrid

Pair remote participants with other remote participants in a dedicated video breakout room. Give in-person and online attendees identical digital worksheet links so notes can be reviewed simultaneously. Project remote video screens to the room during the whole-group debrief.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may select light everyday habits (such as food or bedtime preferences) rather than disclosing private emotional or moral conflicts.
- Participants may write notes silently and listen without sharing their personal entries.
- Provide printed copies of all spoken paradox statements for visual reference.

## If the session gets stuck

**A participant insists on proving one side of a contradiction wrong.**

Intervene gently: remind them that paradoxes highlight two conditions that can be true simultaneously depending on context, and ask what context makes the opposing side true.

**Small groups get stuck debating heated political arguments during the policy step.**

Direct them back to the worksheet prompt: their job is not to solve the policy debate, but to name the two legitimate values that are pulling against each other.


## Terms used here

- Paradox: A statement or situation that seems contradictory or impossible, but upon investigation reveals a deeper truth.

## Participant material: Contradiction Worksheet

Part 1: Personal Contradictions
Identify two habits, traits, or values you hold that seem contradictory.
Example: 'I value thrift and saving, but I impulse-buy high-end art supplies.'
1. I value/do: ____________________
   YET I also value/do: ____________________
   What this shows about my needs: ____________________

2. I value/do: ____________________
   YET I also value/do: ____________________
   What this shows about my needs: ____________________

Part 2: Policy Contradictions
Choose a policy topic: Affirmative Action, Policing, National Security, Disability, Environmentalism, Welfare, Gun Control.
Topic chosen: ____________________
1. Value or goal A: ____________________
2. Competing value or goal B: ____________________
3. How might both values be legitimate simultaneously? ____________________
4. What tension or paradox does this create for decision-makers? ____________________

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in the Collaborative Discussion Project module '2.2 Embracing Contradictions', created with Shannon Wheatley Hartman.

Retained the core structure from Collaborative Discussion Project: introductory paradox statements, personal contradiction charting, policy tension analysis, and closing debrief. Provided concrete worksheet text to replace external Google Doc references, added pacing constraints, specified participant access options, and supplied facilitation guidance.

[Collaborative Discussion Project](https://www.collaborativediscussionproject.com/items-1/22embracingcontradictions)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/2-embracing-contradictions/