Game theory

There are many ways to get to know people, some more effective than others. For example, the “real” romance success rate after “virtual” Facebook friendship does not give much grounds for optimism (nor do many other dating techniques, to be honest). Going on one week camping trip together definitely will expand your knowledge of that person but that involves much dirt and time. A method with more limited goals but involving less time and more success is to play a game together, one that takes a few hours. It ideally should require interaction and communication so you can get a take on that person.

A few examples are in order. Many years ago, after I just immigrated to Israel, I met a fellow American, my age, who had also just arrived. A group of us Yankees, around five males, played a game of Risk, the board game. This was clearly before online and video games had taken over. The version we played was slightly different than the one I was familiar in that each player was given a card that stated his specific condition for winning.  This was not “to take over the world’ to quote “the Brain” of Pinky fame. It involved controlling certain continents. While the rest of us were busy yacking and attacking randomly, this person quietly and effectively conquered South and North America and shockingly declared that he had won. What I learned on that day was how intelligent and methodical he was and still is.  It should be no surprise that he is a statistician.

Computer games, especially roleplaying ones, generally begin with a simple but illuminating request: name the character. In my opinion, the answer reveals many aspects of the player. There are those that enter their own name; those that enter a nickname; and those that enter a random name with no connection to themselves. Quite often, the first category groups people that enjoy attention to themselves and see themselves as the center of their own world. They are their own heroes in the imaginary and real world. The second group is a bit more schizophrenic in that it likes both the attention of being the hero and the possibility of being someone else. The third group, where I belong, attracts the outsiders, those that sit at the edge of the campfire and are a bit embarrassed at their own birthdays. These people pick and choose their direct involvement depending on mood and interest. Sometimes, it is nice to be the center but not too often.

Finally, the “restart” button creates a terrible temptation for those who are weak emotionally. It allows the possibility of starting again when a game suddenly goes very wrong instead of working through the issues. The emotionally strong keep on playing and accept the challenge of fighting back (sometimes literally). The overly sensitive forget that “the sun will come out tomorrow” and only see the current disaster before them.  In real life, for better or worse, there is no “restart’ button. The strength to confront and overcome problems is one of the keys to success, especially in managerial positions and relationships. That so many people are emotional cowards does not mean makes their life easier.

As play is key learning tool for learning motoric skills, it also illuminates social skills and attitudes. Beyond the reaction to winning and losing, which strongly vary from person to person, the manner in which people play brings out hidden but important aspects of their personality. These should be known before you go on a week-long vacation together. That is my theory any way.