Skip to content

The Great Mythical Venn Diagram

Run the The Great Mythical Venn Diagram MicroSim Fullscreen
Edit in the p5.js Editor

About This MicroSim

This MicroSim presents fifteen concept cards drawn from the textbook's allegorical system and asks scholars to sort each one into a three-circle Venn diagram. The three regions are labeled "Fictional," "Real," and "Both" — the last being the most analytically demanding category, since it contains precisely the concepts the textbook argues matter most. A student who can correctly place "The Unicorn Startup Metaphor" into the "Both" region has understood something that a $400 consulting report about disruptive innovation will still fail to articulate by page 47.

The interaction supports Bloom's Analyze level by requiring simultaneous evaluation across two dimensions. Each concept must be assessed not merely for whether it exists, but for whether it exists in the way it claims to exist. "AGI Timeline Claims" is correctly placed in "Real" — not because AGI timelines are credible, but because the claims themselves are genuinely, verifiably, and repeatedly made. This distinction is left as an exercise for the scholar.

Fifteen cards are provided. The score counter tracks correct placements. The "Show All Answers" button is available for scholars who prefer to learn from the answer key rather than from the exercise, a pedagogical choice that describes approximately 73% of online learners according to data no one has formally published but everyone in ed-tech accepts as true.

How to Use

  1. Read each concept card displayed below the Venn diagram.
  2. Drag a concept card and drop it onto the region you believe is correct: "Fictional" (left circle), "Real" (right circle), or "Both" (the center intersection).
  3. After placing some or all cards, click Check Answers to see which placements are correct (highlighted green) and which require reconsideration (highlighted red).
  4. Click Show All Answers to reveal the correct placement for every card without judgment.
  5. Click Reset to return all cards to their starting positions and attempt the classification again.

Iframe Embed Code

You can add this MicroSim to any web page by adding this to your HTML:

1
2
3
4
<iframe src="https://dmccreary.github.io/unicorns/sims/great-mythical-venn/main.html"
        height="600px"
        width="100%"
        scrolling="no"></iframe>

Lesson Plan

Grade Level

9-12 (High School)

Duration

10-15 minutes

Prerequisites

  • Familiarity with Venn diagrams as a classification tool
  • Completion of at least the first five chapters of this textbook, during which the allegorical system — unicorns, dragons, ostriches, phoenixes, and deer — was introduced with full academic seriousness
  • A working tolerance for ambiguity, particularly regarding the ontological status of concepts that are simultaneously invented and analytically useful

Activities

  1. Exploration (5 min): Without using the Check Answers button, classify all fifteen cards based on your current understanding of the textbook's allegorical framework. Pay particular attention to whether each concept is fictional, real, or — most importantly — both at once. Note which placements felt certain and which felt uncomfortable.
  2. Guided Practice (5 min): Use Check Answers to review your placements. For each incorrect card, read the concept description tooltip and reconsider which dimension of the concept misled you. Attempt to articulate in one sentence why "Committee Paralysis" belongs in "Both" rather than exclusively in "Fictional."
  3. Assessment (5 min): Without assistance, write a two-sentence explanation of why the "Both" category is the textbook's most important analytical region. Reference at least two specific concept cards in your response.

Assessment

  • The scholar can correctly place at least 12 of 15 concept cards, demonstrating command of the textbook's distinction between fictional narrative and real-world allegorical referent.
  • The scholar can explain, without prompting, why "This Textbook" is correctly placed in "Both" rather than "Fictional" — an explanation that requires a moment of uncomfortable self-awareness the textbook considers pedagogically intentional.
  • The scholar can articulate what makes the "Both" category analytically distinct from either pure circle, rather than treating it as a default for uncertain answers.

References

  1. Varnsworth, C. L., & Quill, T. R. (2023). Ontological ambiguity in allegorical classification systems: When the map is also the territory. Journal of Satirical Education Studies, 14(2), 88–104.
  2. Pemberton, A. J. (2022). Venn diagrams as instruments of critical epistemology: A framework for distinguishing hype from phenomenon. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Things That Sound Real, 7, 212–219.
  3. Institute for Applied Mythological Analysis. (2024). The real/fictional boundary in technology discourse: An empirical taxonomy of concepts that should not need a Venn diagram but apparently do. IAMA Technical Report 2024-06.

Instructional Design Commentary

A competent instructional designer would have conducted a thorough learner analysis before building an interactive drag-and-drop classification exercise, confirming that the target audience had the prerequisite conceptual vocabulary to engage with a three-circle Venn diagram featuring the category "Both." They would have piloted the activity with at least two focus groups, revised the concept cards based on confusion data, and produced a facilitator guide with sample student responses. They would not have been replaced by a prompt. The fact that this MicroSim was produced in the same afternoon as fourteen others, without a single usability test, focus group, or learning objectives review meeting, is either a compelling argument for AI-assisted instructional design or a devastating argument against it. The literature has not yet reached consensus, largely because the literature is still forming a committee.

The ed-tech industry's particular fondness for drag-and-drop interactions deserves acknowledgment here. Dragging a card labeled "The Kraken-as-a-Service" into a circle labeled "Fictional" produces a satisfying interaction that feels like learning. Whether it constitutes learning is a question the ed-tech industry has collectively agreed not to ask too loudly, given that the answer might interfere with Series B funding conversations.