4 ms·

> A core concept behind something being a "game" is that it exists in a morally isolated sandbox This is interesting; if true, what of game theory's seat at th

> A core concept behind something being a "game" is that it exists in a morally isolated sandbox This is interesting; if true, what of game theory's seat at the core of many notions of strategy as deployed for explicitly moral purposes? Also, anecdotally, I've seen pretty good results putting some campy, tongue in cheek acknowledgement that I'm not playing games in the resume/cover letter space where these alleged "rules of the game" might otherwise dictate meaningless boilerplate should go Some employers seem to appreciate honesty and a reluctance to bullshit

LesZedCB 5y ago
GP is making up definitions for concepts in ways that make no sense. denying the existence of games because you find them morally reprehensible doesn't change the fact of their existence. of course games are executed with moral repercussions. if anything, that's really the point of games. they are simplified, yes, but not amoral. if anything, most "amoral" or "apolitical" games are widely implemented hegemonic tools.
- walleeee 5y ago
  Yeah, games seem to circumscribe morality in a particular context, maybe in ways that allow us to explore certain moral questions, or (to your latter point) ignore others
munificent 5y ago
"Game" gets used to analyze human behavior a couple of unrelated ways. Game theory as a branch of mathematics is about analyzing adversarial and potentially limited knowledge systems. It is unrelated to whether some theoretical game is embedded in any particular social or moral system. You can look at dating, the voting patterns of the United Nations, and poker all under the lens of game theory even though the former two wouldn't generally be considered "games". Unrelated to that, over in the world of "ludology" or game studies and game development, people discuss what it means for a certain system to "be a game" or "not be a game". Likewise, they discuss what makes an activity "play" versus "not play". Why do we feel some moves are "play-like" and others aren't. What defines our notion of fair play? What is sportsmanship? What is cheating? Where is the line between the game and the metagame? I'm using "game" in the second sense here, which I think applies. When people say something "is a game", often what they are implying is that "all legal moves are fair play". But I think that value statement is only morally justifiable in an environment that is actually game-like. And for a social system to be game-like in that way means that everyone participating has agreed to the rules of the game and accepts that all moves are fair play.
- walleeee 5y ago
  > When people say something "is a game", often what they are implying is that "all legal moves are fair play" Good point, I guess the concept is constantly negotiated by this sort of conversation too

LesZedCB 5y ago

GP is making up definitions for concepts in ways that make no sense. denying the existence of games because you find them morally reprehensible doesn't change the fact of their existence. of course games are executed with moral repercussions. if anything, that's really the point of games. they are simplified, yes, but not amoral. if anything, most "amoral" or "apolitical" games are widely implemented hegemonic tools.

walleeee 5y ago
Yeah, games seem to circumscribe morality in a particular context, maybe in ways that allow us to explore certain moral questions, or (to your latter point) ignore others

munificent 5y ago

"Game" gets used to analyze human behavior a couple of unrelated ways. Game theory as a branch of mathematics is about analyzing adversarial and potentially limited knowledge systems. It is unrelated to whether some theoretical game is embedded in any particular social or moral system. You can look at dating, the voting patterns of the United Nations, and poker all under the lens of game theory even though the former two wouldn't generally be considered "games". Unrelated to that, over in the world of "ludology" or game studies and game development, people discuss what it means for a certain system to "be a game" or "not be a game". Likewise, they discuss what makes an activity "play" versus "not play". Why do we feel some moves are "play-like" and others aren't. What defines our notion of fair play? What is sportsmanship? What is cheating? Where is the line between the game and the metagame? I'm using "game" in the second sense here, which I think applies. When people say something "is a game", often what they are implying is that "all legal moves are fair play". But I think that value statement is only morally justifiable in an environment that is actually game-like. And for a social system to be game-like in that way means that everyone participating has agreed to the rules of the game and accepts that all moves are fair play.

walleeee 5y ago
> When people say something "is a game", often what they are implying is that "all legal moves are fair play" Good point, I guess the concept is constantly negotiated by this sort of conversation too