Analogy to Society: Scrabble Game by Bytemite

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Analogy to Society: Scrabble Game

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Monday, January 9, 2012 08:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1018
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, January 8, 2012 7:32 PM

I had an epiphany.

There are two kinds of viable scrabble play.

For the first, competitors place only two or three letter words and attempt to block other players. They each "play to win," but very little advancement is made in general. New words aren't learned, scores tend to be low, and the game takes longer.

The other way to play is players deliberately use as long as words they can, while still competing for the important 2x and 3x score squares, not necessarily allowing another player to take the multiplier squares, and relying on random chance of letter selection to add the element of difficulty and skill into the game and to determine the winner. Games are shorter in length, words are easier to place, players learn more words, and scores are generally higher.

This translates to society. A purely competitive society can ultimately hobble itself intellectually, efficiency, and technology-wise if it is too cutthroat to even allow other players a chance on the playing field. In a purely cooperative game, no one technically wins (or maybe everyone does? Depends on point of view and the value of winning, if merely getting on the board is enough to secure survival). The best society (best end results - score) would conceivably have a mix of competitive and cooperative elements.

There is a third style of play, that can be used when someone has already "lost" and if they don't care about winning, which might undermine other more competitive players, by non-play intermixed with attempted long-shot play ("shooting the moon").

Just thinking out loud.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2012 12:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Imma big fan of everybody wins...

And I really, really oughta head off to bed but your analogy opens up a way to explain something I never seem to be able to get across no matter how much I try.

I play for maximum score.
Ah, but here's the catch - I define that as the sum of BOTH scores, both mine and the "opponents", and thus will not only play for personal score, if I see a way to set-up the opponent for a double or triple, I'll do it - even if that opponent does not reciprocate - cause in the end it benefits my goal.

So essentially their own self-interest plays to my game, and while their cooperation would perhaps increase the benefit somewhat, it's not entirely or exactly necessary, see ?
And an opponent who plays maliciously and self-destructs their own game in efforts to hinder me will still, ultimately lose, badly.

So within your analogy this essentially explains my comment in regard to inevitability, cause end of the day, considering the inherent "goal" of the manner in which I play the game, there's ALWAYS gonna be some "win" for me in there...

Course, not sure if anyone ELSE can mentally untangle it, but at least you'll get it, doll.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2012 1:46 AM

DREAMTROVE

I like to just have fun and make nice words. Every once in a while it's good to throw in something naughty so that people don't get too stale.

That said, I think the two word came is partly a result of ritual, and not a lot of imagination. The problem with too much cooperation is you get a bunch of people helping one player to the unfair advantage over others.

Me, I like to open-source my letters, flip them over, because I know as I arrange my word publicly, other folk can help but make suggestions.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2012 4:41 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
if I see a way to set-up the opponent for a double or triple, I'll do it - even if that opponent does not reciprocate - cause in the end it benefits my goal.

Right. Pushing the 2-3 letter jerk deliberately playing that way to go for the double and triple letter scores results in making longer words. Which helps everyone.

Quote:
I like to just have fun and make nice words.

Eventually, when one player's ridiculously restricted play style became too obnoxious, it began to force the other players to adopt a similar style. I simply decided to change my goal in the game. I turned it into a quest to find somewhere to put down the word "zoologic" on the board, since I happened to be lucky enough to snag all of the necessary tiles except one 'o'.

This netted me an ultimate score of 25, and I was not successful, but the thing is I was having FUN again, when I hadn't been while playing by the normal rules.

Also, the restrictive strategy actually LOST to a third player (predictably). Their strategy of using too many small 2-3 letter words ultimately limited their score compared to the third player with a less restrictive play style. Yet more indication that play-style is actually flawed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2012 5:54 AM

DREAMTROVE

You have to undermine his play by creating more open space, with longer words. Maybe that's what Frem was saying.
If the Captain Shortwords is only making X points over it, he'll have to adopt to the wide open strategy.
A good way to force this is by starting with "Longest word goes first" rather than "earliest letter."

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2012 7:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Game theory as a study of society.

Byte, you should look into it. It's a well-developed field. I have not had time, but from what little I have read its fascinating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2012 7:45 AM

BYTEMITE

I dunno. What I'd read about game theory was less about meaningful interpretations about social efficiency, and more about how no one ever cooperates or should cooperate and you should never trust your partners even when you're all facing prison. This I think is influenced by cultural bias.

So I'm starting some of my own game theory ideas, because I think existing ones are flawed, and because I probably don't think in exactly the same way as most Americans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 9, 2012 8:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Possibly.

The game theory that I have read about stems from the competitions held in Mississauga. There are several different "modes" of game theory involving both individuals (prisoners dilemma, "tit for tat" the winner) and groups. The prime strategies involved are cooperation versus competition. But you might happen on something new. It wouldn't be the first time that field experts were bested by individuals.

homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~xshi/eco380_11_syllabus.pdf

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE