5 ms·

>The game explicitly says to ignore everything except... I don't agree with that condition, and ignored it. I live in the real world, not hypothetical-land. To

>The game explicitly says to ignore everything except... I don't agree with that condition, and ignored it. I live in the real world, not hypothetical-land. Too much of what's wrong with the world starts with people ignoring the real world, and going hypothetical.

hibbelig 3y ago
> I don't agree with that condition, and ignored it. Fascinating. It’s a game! No Knight moves one square to the right and two up, but it seems chess players have no problem with it.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Because chess has a throughout specification (at least now, not sure if it was always that way). A knight is only a night and cannot fall under any other category. Can you think of a rule in chess that is not well defined?
  - rileymat2 3y ago
    I think which player gets white is ill defined by the game proper, and selected by the various organizers/players. Edit: I think in tournament chess there is some ill defined rules around play behavior/distractions.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      But it's kind of the point that the well defined parts such as movement allowed per piece aren't really up for discussion. Where the contention occurs is on human behaviors. Where the rules for chess are pretty simple (and yes, this does lead to difficult to compute and complex behavior), the motivations that humans follow both individually and as social structures are far more complex and contradictory.
  - hibbelig 3y ago
    Well, GP compared the rules against real life and decided that they are different from real life, so they shouldn't be followed. Chess rules are also different from real life, but people don't have any issues following them. The question whether it was “well defined” doesn't come into play here, I think: the rules in the game tell you to ignore any overrides (such as that certain vehicles may be allowed in an emergency situation). And GP decided to ignore that part. I think interesting discussion can be had even when respecting this rule. For example, I decided that a skate board is not a vehicle but a bike is.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      I disagree. Lets take chess and the knight, and 2 - 1 movement rules. If there are pieces in front of the knight you pick up the knight off the board in 3 dimensional space, right?! The rules of chess only define the final end point of the piece and not the physical motion in real space to reach that location. With this said, if you're in a professional setting, and you pick up the king and fly it around like an airplane, everyone is going to get really tired of your shit.
      - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
        They’d be tired of your shit because you’d be acting like an ass, not because you’d be breaking any game rules.
        solveit 3y ago
        FIDE Laws of Chess: 11.5 - "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area." Naturally, this rule is not interpreted literally.
- nitwit005 3y ago
  There are reasons not to cheat at a game. It'll have negative social consequences, and you might get barred from further games. Why follow the rules of some online survey? Logically you should do whatever provides you the maximum emotional benefit, regardless of what the rules say.
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    > Why follow the rules of some online survey? Logically you should do whatever provides you the maximum emotional benefit, regardless of what the rules say. Why follow the rules of the game then? I used to cheat at many games both online and offline, some casinos think I "cheat" because I always count cards, I have an explicit gain by winning in all scenarios, as I either gain more satisfaction from winning or monetary output. The same social consequences come from the online survey, i.e. I do collect information about who you are, further you do damage the quality of the data meant to fund/explore future decisions in all kinds of venues, e.g. social studies, politics, etc.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Online surveys are not valid research tool anyway, because of heavy selection bias. As for giving bullshit answers on them, valid surveys have built-in protection measures. The amount of trolling in surveys has been measured this way; I've seen it refered to by at least one author as "Lizardman's constant", and it was consistently around 7% or such.
    - nitwit005 3y ago
      It's unlikely to be a constant amount. There have been, somewhat ironically, surveys about lying on surveys. One result is that people will indicate being more or less likely to lie, depending on the sort of question: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29206289 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29206289
- Qwertious 3y ago
  This isn't just a game, it's a political analogy. If we treat it as a game without connection to real life then we can't fairly connect behavior in it to its real life analog. It's like telling someone "Counterstrike is just a game" then acting morally outraged when they shot someone in-game with an AK.
  - psychoslave 3y ago
    Just as chess is a political analogy of real war.
navane 3y ago
So your saying, what if the game was not hypothetical?
mikewarot 3y ago
It's like the Stanford Marshmallow experiment[1]. The experiment measured the wrong thing, the credibility of the experimenters in the eyes of the subjects. If you didn't believe they would deliver on their promise, you took the first reward. I don't agree with the conditions of the game, because far too much damage is done by people who "both sides" or "I'm just asking questions" or otherwise hedge on normal socially accepted behavior. The post fairness doctrine[2] world is a harsh place, and it's made me grumpy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  There's a big gap between "they measured the wrong thing" and showing up to play a game but not following any of the rules. If you object to the game then why are you pretending to play it?
  - brewdad 3y ago
    Perhaps the same reason there are trolls on the internet. The game you are playing and want me to play is not the game I wish to play, so I shall do my own thing in your game space.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      You have to go out of your way to get to this game space, so that's pretty rude and hard to defend.
      - hmcq6 3y ago
        Why is it rude? If the author cared about getting accurate results they wouldn't be posting an anonymous online survey. Adding onto that, I don't have any faith in the author of the post to use this data in any significant way (no shade to the author I just think most of these studies go nowhere).
bigstrat2003 3y ago
Then why on earth are you playing a game which is purely about hypotheticals to begin with? It's like if someone were to sit down to play Monopoly but refuse to hand over rent because "I believe that having a dwelling should be free". Ok, good for you, but then it's really foolish to play the game to begin with.
- whats_a_quasar 3y ago
  The point of the game is to illustrate this behavior. That is why they use a real-world example, to produce different results when different people are asked the same question. It's not a math problem.

hibbelig 3y ago

> I don't agree with that condition, and ignored it. Fascinating. It’s a game! No Knight moves one square to the right and two up, but it seems chess players have no problem with it.

pixl97 3y ago
Because chess has a throughout specification (at least now, not sure if it was always that way). A knight is only a night and cannot fall under any other category. Can you think of a rule in chess that is not well defined?
- rileymat2 3y ago
  I think which player gets white is ill defined by the game proper, and selected by the various organizers/players. Edit: I think in tournament chess there is some ill defined rules around play behavior/distractions.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    But it's kind of the point that the well defined parts such as movement allowed per piece aren't really up for discussion. Where the contention occurs is on human behaviors. Where the rules for chess are pretty simple (and yes, this does lead to difficult to compute and complex behavior), the motivations that humans follow both individually and as social structures are far more complex and contradictory.
- hibbelig 3y ago
  Well, GP compared the rules against real life and decided that they are different from real life, so they shouldn't be followed. Chess rules are also different from real life, but people don't have any issues following them. The question whether it was “well defined” doesn't come into play here, I think: the rules in the game tell you to ignore any overrides (such as that certain vehicles may be allowed in an emergency situation). And GP decided to ignore that part. I think interesting discussion can be had even when respecting this rule. For example, I decided that a skate board is not a vehicle but a bike is.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I disagree. Lets take chess and the knight, and 2 - 1 movement rules. If there are pieces in front of the knight you pick up the knight off the board in 3 dimensional space, right?! The rules of chess only define the final end point of the piece and not the physical motion in real space to reach that location. With this said, if you're in a professional setting, and you pick up the king and fly it around like an airplane, everyone is going to get really tired of your shit.
    - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
      They’d be tired of your shit because you’d be acting like an ass, not because you’d be breaking any game rules.
      - solveit 3y ago
        FIDE Laws of Chess: 11.5 - "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area." Naturally, this rule is not interpreted literally.
nitwit005 3y ago
There are reasons not to cheat at a game. It'll have negative social consequences, and you might get barred from further games. Why follow the rules of some online survey? Logically you should do whatever provides you the maximum emotional benefit, regardless of what the rules say.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > Why follow the rules of some online survey? Logically you should do whatever provides you the maximum emotional benefit, regardless of what the rules say. Why follow the rules of the game then? I used to cheat at many games both online and offline, some casinos think I "cheat" because I always count cards, I have an explicit gain by winning in all scenarios, as I either gain more satisfaction from winning or monetary output. The same social consequences come from the online survey, i.e. I do collect information about who you are, further you do damage the quality of the data meant to fund/explore future decisions in all kinds of venues, e.g. social studies, politics, etc.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Online surveys are not valid research tool anyway, because of heavy selection bias. As for giving bullshit answers on them, valid surveys have built-in protection measures. The amount of trolling in surveys has been measured this way; I've seen it refered to by at least one author as "Lizardman's constant", and it was consistently around 7% or such.
  - nitwit005 3y ago
    It's unlikely to be a constant amount. There have been, somewhat ironically, surveys about lying on surveys. One result is that people will indicate being more or less likely to lie, depending on the sort of question: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29206289 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29206289
Qwertious 3y ago
This isn't just a game, it's a political analogy. If we treat it as a game without connection to real life then we can't fairly connect behavior in it to its real life analog. It's like telling someone "Counterstrike is just a game" then acting morally outraged when they shot someone in-game with an AK.
- psychoslave 3y ago
  Just as chess is a political analogy of real war.

navane 3y ago

So your saying, what if the game was not hypothetical?

mikewarot 3y ago

It's like the Stanford Marshmallow experiment[1]. The experiment measured the wrong thing, the credibility of the experimenters in the eyes of the subjects. If you didn't believe they would deliver on their promise, you took the first reward. I don't agree with the conditions of the game, because far too much damage is done by people who "both sides" or "I'm just asking questions" or otherwise hedge on normal socially accepted behavior. The post fairness doctrine[2] world is a harsh place, and it's made me grumpy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

Dylan16807 3y ago
There's a big gap between "they measured the wrong thing" and showing up to play a game but not following any of the rules. If you object to the game then why are you pretending to play it?
- brewdad 3y ago
  Perhaps the same reason there are trolls on the internet. The game you are playing and want me to play is not the game I wish to play, so I shall do my own thing in your game space.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    You have to go out of your way to get to this game space, so that's pretty rude and hard to defend.
    - hmcq6 3y ago
      Why is it rude? If the author cared about getting accurate results they wouldn't be posting an anonymous online survey. Adding onto that, I don't have any faith in the author of the post to use this data in any significant way (no shade to the author I just think most of these studies go nowhere).

bigstrat2003 3y ago

Then why on earth are you playing a game which is purely about hypotheticals to begin with? It's like if someone were to sit down to play Monopoly but refuse to hand over rent because "I believe that having a dwelling should be free". Ok, good for you, but then it's really foolish to play the game to begin with.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago
The point of the game is to illustrate this behavior. That is why they use a real-world example, to produce different results when different people are asked the same question. It's not a math problem.