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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

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 whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would