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 Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Summarizing the “Separation of Church and State”

There is much confusion surrounding the concept of the “separation of church and state”; much of it likely born out of the steep secular decline in religious affiliation across recent generations, with particular emphasis among atheists and anti-deists.  While many have hastened to leverage this language (“separation of church and state”) in order to condemn or censure religious values — particularly those which are Christian — where they have carried influence in public life (i.e. prayer in schools, teachers covering lessons from the Bible, government representatives appealing to God, coinage bearing the words “In God We Trust”), the truth is that this “separation” was never expected to completely eliminate religious practice or religious sentiment from all matter of public life. In fact, religion was so deeply enmeshed in American life during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that the French magistrate and prison reformer Gustave de Beaumont, during his nine-month tour of A...

Rethinking “Forgiveness”

Forgiveness is often hailed as the ultimate moral virtue — a cleansing of the soul, a sign of spiritual maturity, and the first step toward healing fractured relationships. But in modern discourse, particularly in religious and pop-psychological circles, “forgiveness” has extended beyond the sensible, beyond etiquette, and beyond justice and useful application. The concept of “forgiveness” has been stretched far outside of the realms of that which is easy to “forgive”, that which is merely inconvenient or annoying, or relatively innocuous or insignificant, where “forgiveness” is merely part of tolerating people’s human shortcomings, their mistakes and  their accidents , or extending ‘mercy’ to those who’ve disrespected or “trespassed against us” (and have since offered sincere apologies and the necessary restitution). This reimagined kind of “forgiveness” has taken on a dangerously idealized form ignorant to or dismissive of the laws and limits of human nature and the potential imp...