Skip to main content

The Misunderstood Game of Common Sense

The Wikipedia Game is a competition encouraging participants to navigate the online encyclopedia through available URL links to discover a predetermined page. The game inherently demonstrates one of the critical facets of efficient markets, from which often spawn a series of additional frictional events: the information problem. 

The information problem is a consequence of scarcity, which takes many forms and faces each person across every episode of human behavior, however momentous or trivial, inclusive of a near-infinite and ever-developing set of unique circumstances. We can therefore never properly assume that there ever exists a very bare minimum of knowledge possessed by any set or persons when confronted with a challenge. 

A common folly among persons today is the intense and popular invocation of “common sense” as an embodiment of some Holy standard to be worshipped and embodied by all. Of course, there exist no such empirical or historical parameters to support the expectation of common sense, yet the general equilibria of the populace, as well as its general acceptance of decorum, tend to generate this flimsy, thoughtless illusion. We know this because the Wikipedia Game, despite appearing to contain an ingredient of “common sense” baked into its process, requires rudimentary computer, language, and Internet skills, an acceptance and understanding of the rules governing the game, and a minimal conceptual grasp of the terms gracing each page along the way to the final webpage. 

There are apparently scores of dynamics, those of focus, interference, and limited knowledge related to the subjects on each page, each link, and ultimately on the end page, guiding one through each phase to the end goal of that precise predetermined page. The participant who achieves comparative success by minimizing distractions, comprehending the game’s rules and accurately predicting the details and layers associated with each link, will ultimately win this game. 

Of course, the capacity of an individual to win any game is consistent with not only a controlled set of variables, but rather simultaneously inclusive of a variety of exogenous, even immaterial influences, as far as they pertain to the outcome of this game. Of course, being that so little is leveraged upon the outcome of this game, the inputs generated to secure their outcomes are unlikely to produce any semblance of one’s full capacity, as even the time allocated to the task is often scant and reduced to mere recreation. However, the game illustrates an important facet of those more serious components of market activity, and its value is doubtless instrumental to a complete comprehension of individual behavior and its consequence of market behavior. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…