1. Finding the Future Faster™
What are the possible implications of
playing the “Choking Game”?
Joel Barker’s
Implications Wheel®
Identify Opportunities. Reduce Risks.
Improve Outcomes.
©
Copyright, 2005-2012, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

2. Joel Barker’s Implications Wheel®
The Implications Wheel® is a Strategic
Exploration Tool that explores the
implications, positive and negative, of an
issue, in a collaborative process where
“every voice is heard.”
©
Copyright, 2005-2012, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

3. In a complex environment, the implications of a
decision or event may not be immediately obvious.
Every decision or event has
immediate implications.
These are 1st order.
The 1st order consequences
trigger additional consequences.
These are 2nd order.
2nd order consequences trigger
another ripple of consequences.
These are 3rd order.
© Joel Barker / Implication Wheel® © Joel Barker
3

4. Joel Barker’s Implications Wheel®
What are the possible implications of
playing the “Choking Game”?
©
Copyright, 2005-2012, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

5. The Choking Game
• Choking game refers to intentionally cutting off oxygen to the
brain with the goal of inducing temporary euphoria.
• Mostly boys and girls between the ages of 9-16. Estimated as
many as 250 to 1,000 young people die in the United States
each year playing some variant of the choking game.
• Recent college survey found the following statistics:
- 16% of students said they'd played the game.
- On average, students first played the game at age 14.
- 90% of students who had played the game learned about it
from friends, and most students first played in a group
setting.
©
Copyright, 2005-2012, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

6. An Implications Wheel® exploration
first identifies “first order”
implications – “what might happen
next?”
This exploration identified 13 “first-
order” implications.
1st Order
Topic
©
Copyright, 2005-2011, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

8. An Implications Wheel® exploration then
identifies “second order” implications for
each of the “first-orders.”
This exploration identified 65 “second-
order” implications. 2 Order
nd
Topic
©
Copyright, 2005-2011, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

9. The exploration then
identifies “third-order”
implications for each of
the “second-order”
3 Orderrd
implications.
This exploration
identified 325 “third-
order” implications.
Topic
©
Copyright, 2005-2011, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

10. Each implication is scored from a specified
“point-of-view” on two factors – in a process
where “majority rules” but minority reports are
respected and reported.
©
Copyright, 2005-2011, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

11. Joel Barker’s Implications Wheel®
What are the possible implications of
playing the “Choking Game”?
Here are five “arcs” from this exploration. If you would
like to receive more information on this exploration,
please e-mail Andrew.Schreier@strategicexploration.com
Scoring “Point-of-View:” Adolescent (13-18) who is aware of
choking game (through peers, social media, Internet) but has
never played before. *
©
Copyright, 2005-2012, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

17. Here’s a “Summary” showing the
Highly Likely Significant Negative
Implications for one of the “first orders.”

18. Here’s a “Summary” showing the
Highly Likely Significant Negative
Implications for one of the “first orders.”

19. Joel Barker’s Implications Wheel®
• The Implications Wheel is a “decision-enhancing”
tool for individuals and organizations.
• We “interrogate” the exploration to answer:
– What actions can be taken to avoid the highly negative,
highly likely implications?
– What actions can be taken to increase the likelihood of
highly positive, less likely implications?
– Are there implications that appear frequently in the
exploration, indicating something more likely to occur –
prompted by different preceding events.?
©
Copyright, 2005-2012, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

20. Joel Barker’s Implications Wheel®
• It is interesting in this exploration on the “Choking
Game” that the same implication is scored very
differently on different “arcs,” depending on the
preceding implication.
– If a person has successfully played the “Choking Game” it
appears the following implications, even if negative, will
be scored as less undesirable and/or less likely – if they
had a bad experience, the same implication following
was scored as more undesirable and more likely.
©
Copyright, 2005-2012, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.

21. Download
• For more information on this exploration and the Introductory
Article
Implications Wheel® process:
– Contact Andrew.Schreier@strategicexploration.com
• for a complete “Scouting Report” on this topic.
– Follow @Explore_Wheels
– Visit http://www.facebook.com/ExploringImplications
– Visit http://www.implicationswheel.com
– Visit http://www.implicationswheel.org
– Follow this and other key topics at:
http://www.scoop.it/t/exploring-current-issues
©
Copyright, 2005-2012, Joel A. Barker. All Rights Reserved.