What in the world has been the point of these surveys?
Over the last few days, I've had a series of surveys regarding games and finances. So has Tony Lower-Basch, though his were more structured.
This has been part of an ongoing conversation. Lower-Basch posited that the strength of belief in zero-sum games was sufficiently strong that positive-sum games would be rejected out of hand. I thought the opposite.
In one survey, I turned Carcassone into a game where everyone can win. The comments regarding that game varied from "stupid", "boring", to "good for children". Meanwhile, Lower-Basch (Err... Tony) created games in which there is a clear victory path, using a variety of framing stories (more on that later). While these framing stories had an effect, at no point were the games described as poor. Instead, participants (that's you guys) rejected the game when it was at odds with their understanding of the frame.
When changing the frame, entirely different answers were elicited. Frames regarding games were viewed as solveable one-winner procedures, while frames posited as finances were viewed as moral quandaries. Fascinatingly enough, a game phrased as "beat your friends at having fun" elicited entirely different responses than "compete in a war", despite having the exact same underlying structure.
Only one game fully dislodged the notion of zero-sum single-winner event games, a frame regarding commerce and happiness of consumption of peaches. The frame was designed to strongly imply everyone got the good end of the deal, and participants rejected both the winner/loser dichotomy as well as this being a game.
Overall, I noticed two strong effects: games as single-winner events, and the power of framing. While the power of framing was predictable, I was surprised at the strength of the belief of single-winner games.
Thanks for participating everyone. Love to hear questions. I think it's been obvious that this has been for some reason, and I do hope this isn't seen as malevolent by anyone. If you have questions regarding the findings, lemme know. This isn't exactly peer-reviewed science, either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I assume you have already read it, but I know a great book that talks at length about the link between finances and morality...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/dp/1612194192
Yep! I've at least skimmed most of this. It's crucial to my understanding.
ReplyDeleteAnd part of why I was so confused when I was told that pre-agrarian societies don't need money. I was all "then what is the store of debt?", and never got a reasonable answer. As that's the core of how I view money -- a store of debt between those who are not kin.
William Nichols Can you unpack 'belief in zero-sum games'? I feel like there are related ideas such as:
ReplyDeletea) People have a clear preference for zero-sum (e.g. tabletop) games
b) People believe that real-world economic/social situations are best modeled by zero-sum games
c) People behave as if they're operating in a zero-sum game, regardless of circumstances
(Dashing out to lunch, happy to clarify/refine the question)
Happy to participate. Where should I send my invoice?
ReplyDelete"I think it's been obvious that this has been for some reason, and I do hope this isn't seen as malevolent by anyone. "
ReplyDeleteI don't see it as malevolent , no, but I will say that this is one of the reasons your questions can frustrate me at times. Like, I can tell there is a point to them, and then you get cagey about the point and that is... frustrating.
Also, I guess I'm an outlier since I prefer cooperative games to single winner ones.
(It's probably obvious, but I'm with Matt Johnson. It was frustrating to butt up against the cageyness.)
ReplyDeleteMichael Prescott Even when presented with facts to the country, participants (sorry) viewed games as zero sum. That is, the over whelming and unconscious assumption was that games must be win-lose.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised!