by 
We specialize in introducing foresight to people and organizations to foresight at the University of Houston Foresight program. We’ve been on a somewhat maniacal quest to find ways to improve the applications and results of foresight work.
In the feedback we get about our work, we often hear something along the lines of some participants feeling uncomfortable, or unable to relate. This is followed by the suggestion to provide content that speaks more directly to whatever it is the client does. This fits with a well-established learning principle of using examples that learners can relate to. Absolutely agree and this fits a great deal of the time.
But not all the time! There is also the “comfort trap,” which is translating terms into the everyday language and everyday problems of the client. But, here’s the rub, typically clients come to us and foresight because what they are doing is not working! So why are we translating into that?
A well-established principle of foresight is to think different. It should be challenging and somewhat uncomfortable. I like to have people work on topics they are not familiar with, so they can’t rely on what they already know, and really have to think it through. In today’s convenience-based, quick-fix context, customer-is-always-right context, deliberately inducing discomfort seems out-of-fashion … but it’s often just what is needed!
I guess I’m wrestling with just what is the right amount of discomfort? Maybe we need a Foresight Pain Scale?I’m interested to hear how others grapple with this? – Andy Hines
ِDear Andy, Thank you for this fascinating insight. I believe another factor that plays a role here is the level of interest and sense of need the participants have for the topic under discussion. If participants don’t feel a strong need for the topic, they tend to reach the discomfort zone more quickly. Therefore, careful selection of participants is very important.