Thursday, March 03, 2005
Pretending that you think you know what you're doing
Rock-Paper-Scissors. Rock beats scissors; scissors cut paper; paper covers rock. A time-tested way to settle disputes in cases where coin-flips just won't do.
So instead of rock, you have a Bear. Instead of paper, you have a Hunter. And instead of scissors, you have a Wife. Bear eats wife; wife controls hunter; hunter shoots bear. And instead of making a fist or an open palm or a "V", you have to act out the part. Yell "grrr" with teeth blaring; shout "bang" while holding an air rifle; or toss your hair back, pucker your lips and give a little girlish "ooo!".
So instead of just you and a friend, imagine it's two groups of 15 people each. Mostly male. As a group you have to decide to be the bear, hunter or wife. And as a group you have to act out your selection. The de facto leaders of your team take control of the group and proudly show off their understanding of psychology with the deep insight that the mostly male members of the other group will probably not want to act out the girlish antics of the "wife".
And then that's it. Somehow merely recognizing what the opponent is willing or unwilling to do is sufficient. And that causes the de facto leaders of the group to say that because the opponents will likely be unwilling to do "X", then we should do "X". No. That's not thinking it through. If you suspect that your opposition is going to be unwilling to do "X", then the rational solution to that is to do the one thing that may leave you vulnerable in the event that the opposition does "X". And in a game of bear-hunter-wife, if you think the opponent is not going to choose "wife", the appropriate response is not to then go ahead and choose "wife", but it is to choose the one thing that is vulnerable to a choice of "wife", which is "hunter".
It's one thing to just leave it up to chance and say that whatever happens happens. It's another to actually try to use logic and reason, and then fuck it up anyway.
Rock-Paper-Scissors. Rock beats scissors; scissors cut paper; paper covers rock. A time-tested way to settle disputes in cases where coin-flips just won't do.
So instead of rock, you have a Bear. Instead of paper, you have a Hunter. And instead of scissors, you have a Wife. Bear eats wife; wife controls hunter; hunter shoots bear. And instead of making a fist or an open palm or a "V", you have to act out the part. Yell "grrr" with teeth blaring; shout "bang" while holding an air rifle; or toss your hair back, pucker your lips and give a little girlish "ooo!".
So instead of just you and a friend, imagine it's two groups of 15 people each. Mostly male. As a group you have to decide to be the bear, hunter or wife. And as a group you have to act out your selection. The de facto leaders of your team take control of the group and proudly show off their understanding of psychology with the deep insight that the mostly male members of the other group will probably not want to act out the girlish antics of the "wife".
And then that's it. Somehow merely recognizing what the opponent is willing or unwilling to do is sufficient. And that causes the de facto leaders of the group to say that because the opponents will likely be unwilling to do "X", then we should do "X". No. That's not thinking it through. If you suspect that your opposition is going to be unwilling to do "X", then the rational solution to that is to do the one thing that may leave you vulnerable in the event that the opposition does "X". And in a game of bear-hunter-wife, if you think the opponent is not going to choose "wife", the appropriate response is not to then go ahead and choose "wife", but it is to choose the one thing that is vulnerable to a choice of "wife", which is "hunter".
It's one thing to just leave it up to chance and say that whatever happens happens. It's another to actually try to use logic and reason, and then fuck it up anyway.
Comments:
Post a Comment
