Reading memoirs has the unexpected effect of adding new games to our repertoire. I discovered the game of Ergo in Jeanentte Walls' memoirs, The Glass Castle. It was a game Walls' father invented to play with his kids. All you need is a few players and the ability to communicate.
The word "ergo" means "therefore". I think therefore I am, promised Descartes. But what conclusions- what "therefore"- can we draw from limited information? At what point does a conclusion become an opinion rather than a statement of fact? Playing Ergo explores this dichotomy and encourages players to formulate their own critical thinking strategies.
HOW TO PLAY
To play the Ergo game, someone makes two statements of fact. Each player then has to answer a question related to these two statements of fact. If the answer doesn't follow from the statements, the player must say, "Insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion" and then explain why this is the case.
Here's a few examples that came to mind when the hamsters in my head hopped on their wheels and wouldn't stop spinning this morning.
Statement 1: Pigs and human beings are the only animals that can get a sunburn.
Statement 2: Some humans eat pigs for breakfast in the form of bacon.
Questions: Do human beings and pigs have the same form of pigment in their skin? (Insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. We can speculate this as a possibility, but nothing in the two statements discusses what causes sunburn in pigs or humans.) Does the word "pigment" come from the word "pig"? (Insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. The statements make no reference to pigment.)
If perchance you do play this game with your family or friends, I'd love to hear some of the statements and questions you formulate.
[Addendum: There's also a card game called "Ergo" in which you seek to prove your own existence while disproving the existence of other players. I need to remember to add it to our wishlists. Family, here's one of those "good gifts" that the entire family would enjoy.]
