ru
Implementation of UX Core in Educational Systems
Throughout the project's lifetime, we've received numerous requests from business schools, organizations, and individuals looking to incorporate the UX Core project's insights into their curricula.
In early 2020, we developed multiplayer games and an offline flash-card version of the project (which was later enhanced to allow downloading individual bias cards as PDFs directly from bias’ pop-up window).
In 2025, we released the "UX Core Awareness Test (uxCAT)" add-on, which offers the most effective method for learning cognitive biases independently. However, since this solution lacks multiplayer functionality, I've revised this article to share multiplayer games and instructions you can implement.
Each game is recommended for UX researchers, product designers, product managers, marketing teams, and anyone interested in understanding how business decisions are being made on a granular level.
🎲 Multiplayer Game: Product Lifecycle Navigator🎲 Multiplayer Game: Mind the Stage🎲 Single/Multi Player Game: Bias Link🎲 Single/Multi Player Game: Ego Fragility
🎲 Multiplayer Game: Product Lifecycle NavigatorPurpose: To build a clearer understanding of each stage in the product lifecycle - and the unique challenges they bring.
Game Format
Participants explore and discuss with each other every stage of the product lifecycle. They compare differences, share insights, and reflect on how the sequence impacts success or failure.
1. Team (~10–15% failure rate)
The foundation of any product. Failures here often stem from co-founder disputes, misaligned skills, or early departures of key players. Though less visible, early-stage breakdowns are disproportionately damaging and, in my opinion, are much more common than they may seem.
2. Development (~40–50% failure rate)
This is where most projects hit a wall. Turning an idea into something that actually works is tough. Teams often run into technical problems, budget limits, or keep changing direction too many times. A lot of products just don’t make it past this point - that’s why it’s often called the “valley of death.”
3. Pre-SignUp (~20–25% failure rate)
The product is ready, but now it needs to reach people. This stage is about how you present it - marketing, messaging, and first impressions. Even good products can get stuck here if the launch isn’t clear or doesn’t connect with the right audience.
4. Post-SignUp (~15–20% failure rate)
You’ve got users. Now the goal is to keep them. Things like confusing onboarding, slow support, or a mismatch between what was promised and what’s delivered can lead to people leaving quickly. Retention becomes the main challenge here.
5. Analytics (indirect but high-risk)
Analytics is running throughout the whole process. It helps you understand what’s working and what’s not. But if the data’s wrong, or it’s misread, it can lead to a series of poor decisions that build up over time. It might not cause instant failure - but it can quietly steer the product off track.
Game Format
Participants explore and discuss with each other every stage of the product lifecycle. They compare differences, share insights, and reflect on how the sequence impacts success or failure.
1. Team (~10–15% failure rate)
The foundation of any product. Failures here often stem from co-founder disputes, misaligned skills, or early departures of key players. Though less visible, early-stage breakdowns are disproportionately damaging and, in my opinion, are much more common than they may seem.
2. Development (~40–50% failure rate)
This is where most projects hit a wall. Turning an idea into something that actually works is tough. Teams often run into technical problems, budget limits, or keep changing direction too many times. A lot of products just don’t make it past this point - that’s why it’s often called the “valley of death.”
3. Pre-SignUp (~20–25% failure rate)
The product is ready, but now it needs to reach people. This stage is about how you present it - marketing, messaging, and first impressions. Even good products can get stuck here if the launch isn’t clear or doesn’t connect with the right audience.
4. Post-SignUp (~15–20% failure rate)
You’ve got users. Now the goal is to keep them. Things like confusing onboarding, slow support, or a mismatch between what was promised and what’s delivered can lead to people leaving quickly. Retention becomes the main challenge here.
5. Analytics (indirect but high-risk)
Analytics is running throughout the whole process. It helps you understand what’s working and what’s not. But if the data’s wrong, or it’s misread, it can lead to a series of poor decisions that build up over time. It might not cause instant failure - but it can quietly steer the product off track.
🎲 Multiplayer Game: Mind the StagePurpose: To train modular thinking by exploring how the same UXCG question can shift meaning depending on the product stage it’s tied to. This helps teams develop the habit of identifying a question’s context before jumping to solutions - leading to more stage-appropriate decisions.
Game Format
Participants pick a question from UXCG related to multiple stages (has multiple stage labels). Then, they discuss how its interpretation, constraints, and ideal answers change depending on the product stage.
Example – Question #26: “How to make bonuses and promotions more attractive to users?”
Game Format
Participants pick a question from UXCG related to multiple stages (has multiple stage labels). Then, they discuss how its interpretation, constraints, and ideal answers change depending on the product stage.
Example – Question #26: “How to make bonuses and promotions more attractive to users?”
- Development stage:
At this point, answers are just theories. We can brainstorm freely, test ideas, and see what sticks after the product goes live. - Pre-SignUp stage:
Now the product is out, and we’re working on how it’s presented. We can still experiment, but there's less room to fail - our reputation is now at stake. - Post-SignUp stage:
Promos now have to work within the product that’s already built. Here, the cost of a bad decision is higher, and we need to factor in things like product economics, user expectations, and technical constraints.
🎲 Single/Multi Player Game: Bias LinkPurpose: To strengthen awareness of cognitive biases in product decisions and train the ability to spot the deeper connections between user questions, proposed solutions, and underlying psychological patterns.
Game Format:
Participant listens a question-answer pairs from any UXCG question. The key here is to tell them the answer, without the bias name.
Then, for each pair, they:
Participant listens a question-answer pairs from any UXCG question. The key here is to tell them the answer, without the bias name.
Then, for each pair, they:
- Discuss the logic of the answer.
- Try to identify the cognitive bias (or biases) mentioned.
- Reflect on how the bias influences the answer.
- Share personal experience or think through a hypothetical example where this bias could appear in real product work (ideally - own product / own company / own reality).
There are no right or wrong answers—this is about developing mental flexibility and pattern recognition. Ideal as a regular study routine, a team warm-up activity, or a deeper workshop session focused on behavior-driven design thinking.
🎲 Single/Multi Player Game: Ego FragilityRecommended for:
Hiring managers, team leads, mentors—anyone evaluating a candidate or colleague's mindset and interpersonal fitness.
Purpose:
To assess a person’s flexibility, ego sensitivity, stress tolerance, and openness to feedback—through a calm but strategically uncomfortable conversation.
Game Format:
The game is a two-track process:
Hiring managers, team leads, mentors—anyone evaluating a candidate or colleague's mindset and interpersonal fitness.
Purpose:
To assess a person’s flexibility, ego sensitivity, stress tolerance, and openness to feedback—through a calm but strategically uncomfortable conversation.
Game Format:
The game is a two-track process:
- One person (the “Interviewer”) asks a set of UXCG questions.
- The other person (the “Candidate”) answers while the Interviewer observes reactions—looking for signs of discomfort, defensiveness, overconfidence, or ego hurt.
The goal is not in the content of the answers but in how the answers are delivered—whether the person stays grounded, asks clarifying questions, or gets thrown off by subtle challenges.
Questions:
Overconfidence (Bias #69):
“How often do you make work-related mistakes?”
→ A balanced person asks for clarification. Overconfidence shows up in fast, absolute answers.
Illusory Superiority (Bias #77):
“What’s the most impactful thing you’ve done?”
“Why do you think that was so major?”
“Could someone else on your team have done it?”
→ Watch for humility vs. defensiveness.
Dunning-Kruger (Bias #74):
Ask questions clearly above the candidate’s current level.
→ Confident discomfort is a green flag. Overconfident ease is not.
Bias Blind Spot (Bias #33):
Explain the biases used. Ask: “Do you think you could be prone to any of these?”
→ A good answer shows self-awareness, not denial.
Use this as a diagnostic—not to judge quickly, but to surface how someone handles subtle ego tension.
Questions:
Overconfidence (Bias #69):
“How often do you make work-related mistakes?”
→ A balanced person asks for clarification. Overconfidence shows up in fast, absolute answers.
Illusory Superiority (Bias #77):
“What’s the most impactful thing you’ve done?”
“Why do you think that was so major?”
“Could someone else on your team have done it?”
→ Watch for humility vs. defensiveness.
Dunning-Kruger (Bias #74):
Ask questions clearly above the candidate’s current level.
→ Confident discomfort is a green flag. Overconfident ease is not.
Bias Blind Spot (Bias #33):
Explain the biases used. Ask: “Do you think you could be prone to any of these?”
→ A good answer shows self-awareness, not denial.
Use this as a diagnostic—not to judge quickly, but to surface how someone handles subtle ego tension.
