andrewducker: (Offensive)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2007-09-22 12:30 pm

When authoritarians get loose

This is fascinating. A large, complex world-sim was played with a large group of people. Beforehand they were divided up according to their results on a personality test designed to find out how authoritarian they were. The authoritarians all played a game together, and then the wishy-washy liberal types played a game together. They weren't told what the test was about, or how they were being split up.

Can you guess which group managed the planet reasonably well and which one managed to have a nuclear war and over a billion people dead of starvation?

[identity profile] opusfluke.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 11:57 am (UTC)(link)
Okay. Environmental crisis, nuclear threats, corruption, starvation... Guess we know who's running the world, eh? See, I'm going to be a benevolent Overlord and when I take over we'll have a proper space program and extra Science for all.

[identity profile] henriksdal.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 11:59 am (UTC)(link)
Is it wrong that I was secretly hoping the wishy-washy liberals destroyed the planet?

[identity profile] guyinahat.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 12:14 pm (UTC)(link)
..shows what happens in an episode of 24...

[identity profile] octopoid-horror.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 12:11 pm (UTC)(link)
I read the article and came to a different conclusion to the one being pushed by the writer.

In -both- groups, the problem wasn't one of their right wing authoritarian ideals. It was having all the money.

[identity profile] octopoid-horror.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 12:22 pm (UTC)(link)
The game without the RWAs wasn't a success. It was only a success compared to other games which failed even more. The biggest richest country refused to help them and pretty much caused 400 million deaths or whatever it was. In contrast to the second game, it was a better result, but that doesn't make it a win.

In the second game, having ridiculous amounts of monies, as stated in the article, allowed them to escalate the situation to a point of inevitability.

[identity profile] octopoid-horror.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 04:51 pm (UTC)(link)
People with lots of money generally feel they can push around those without, yes.

[identity profile] guyinahat.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 12:13 pm (UTC)(link)
All sorts of fundamental flaws in that, but even so I think it does show a general trend of outcomes. The crunch of course is in a mixed game. How large a percentage of RWAs can the world survive having? Hopefully more than we currently have...

Oh and btw, I'm retarded and find your userpic association with being goth quite offensive.
:D

[identity profile] guyinahat.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 12:20 pm (UTC)(link)
I can't remember the last time I listened to bleep.

I'm not sure we need all the approaches - it's more that we've got them, like it or not. The question is how much of the bad we can cope with before it all goes pop...

[identity profile] octopoid-horror.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 12:22 pm (UTC)(link)
I was wearing blue jeans and a white shirt last night.

[identity profile] johanna-alice.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 12:48 pm (UTC)(link)
I suspect the problem would come with having more than one authoritarian. Take good old Fidel for example... To be honest I'd be afraid of the liberals without some kind of check upon their wishy-washiness in a disaster situation.

Am on lunch ATM, but will read whole article later.

[identity profile] major-clanger.livejournal.com 2007-09-22 04:21 pm (UTC)(link)
What would be even more interesting would be to see the same study done with participants segregated on a libertarian/communitarian axis. My own gut feeling is that the libertarians would make an even worse mess than the authoriatarians, but it would be nice to see my preconceptions confirmed or refuted.