When authoritarians get loose

[andrewducker]

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?

Comments

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

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.

[andrewducker]

Can you expand on that?

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

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.

[andrewducker]

Aaah, so increased wealth differentials encouraged protectionism and selfishness?

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

People with lots of money generally feel they can push around those without, yes.