I have discovered a new card game called Monopoly Deal. It is along the lines of the original Monopoly game in the sense that you have money and properties. One key difference is the length of each game. Monopoly Deal has an average game length of about 15 minutes while the length of the original Monopoly is unknown because I have never heard of anyone who finished a game. This difference in duration allows the Monopoly Deal player to play more games in the same amount of time. Consequently, the player can experiment and adjust their mental models (strategy) at a lower cost. From experience, a sensible player needs approximately five games to pick up on the basic Monopoly Deal strategy. Experienced players seldom make obvious mistakes, and the outcome of the game becomes almost entirely determined by chance. In fact, I tested this hypothesis with my 2 roommates during my first year of Teacher’s College in Ottawa. We played a total of 75 games throughout the semester and we each tallied 25 wins. It was an interesting display a probabilistic theory. I recall being ahead five wins to then realize I was trailing by 3. An easy way to experience this for yourself is to flip a coin 100 times and record the outcome of each flip. It would not be surprising to see several lengthy strings of consecutive heads or tails. What would be surprising, however (assuming it is a fair coin) is to observe a large difference between the total number of heads and tails after the 100th flip.
This experience led me to reflect on why we keep playing a game that involves little to no “skill”. I think part of the answer comes from the fact that human intuition often breaks down when it comes to thinking in terms of probability. Just consider casinos as an example. How many times have you heard someone say “It was black the last three rounds so I am due for a red” when talking about independent events such as roulette? It is usually that same person who believes they figured out a betting scheme to “beat the Casino” and walk out with empty pockets and a head full of “it was just not my night” type of thoughts. This illusion of influence might help us cope with the seemingly unpredictable and chaotic world around us. Humans don’t entertain games that undeniably only follow probabilistic rules. Consider the game of getting a point for every time the coin lands on heads and your opponent getting a point otherwise. I would argue that people with a very basic statistical knowledge and common sense would not devote countless hours of playing like they do with Monopoly Deal or other games of chance. If they do, you have the right to be slightly worried about their well-being. Anyhow, that is not the point I want to make. Instead, I want to tackle the following question: Why bother being a good sport when playing Monopoly Deal?
First, it is easier to define a bad sport when it comes down to playing card games since we all have experienced it to some degree. This type of player is known to break the rules. Other players do not trust them and eventually stop inviting them to play. Cheating and lying leave their mark on the mental schemas people form about you. As a result, a cheater will soon be an outcast unless they play with a group of cheaters. Rules are necessary for a game to be played sustainably. Most people play by the rules or at least do not actively seek to break them. Furthermore, the worst possible Monopoly Deal player is selfish. An ambiguity in the rules represents an opportunity to bend them in their favour. When conflict arises, they are the first to speak and do so with unshakeable certainty. They do not value the opinions of other players. Their patience is scarce. Aggression is their go-to problem-solving technique. They will often complain about the cards they pick. Every action taken by another player against them is taken personally. This type of player fluctuates between quitting after one loss or ruining the game for everyone by playing senselessly. This nihilist attitude also renders the game pointless for others. When the bad sport loses in such a way, they usually claim that they weren’t trying, that don’t care and that the game is pointless, or that other people are stupid for playing it. The worst possible result of this ideology occurs when they lose and do not quit right away. Resentment, despair, and anger have time to build up to such levels that they might flip the table upside down leaving the cards flying everywhere. Sometimes they even destroy the deck of cards so no one can rejoice in playing. They may even go as far as trying to destroy their “opponents” instead. This type of behaviour is the worst possible scenario because it makes it impossible for other players to take part in the game. It would not be so bad if they simply removed themselves from the game. As a matter of fact, most players probably think that would be a net positive.
Although there isn’t one purely evil player, I think we can agree that there is a card game ethical spectrum. The idea of having a bad Monopoly Deal player implies that there must be its opposite. The first characteristic of such a player is that they follow the rules of the game. Their ability to understand and play by the rules causes them to be less biased. If the rules themselves have some ambiguity in them, the good sport is glad to discuss with the other players to reach an agreement. They have an open mind and try to get everyone’s opinion on the issue. When it comes to their turn to speak, they do not dismiss other people’s ideas. This does not mean that they are a pushover and that they always give in to consensus. Instead, they seek and vote on the fairest rule for everyone. There is an entire branch of mathematics called game theory that is devoted to this exact problem. The ideal player uses their rationality armed with the applications of game theory to determine the best outcome for the group. Yes, it is often possible to do so with a game of cards. One’s opinion does not matter when there is an objectively better alternative for the group. If they determine such an optimal solution, they might try to calmly explain why this option is better for the group. It is extremely difficult to explain something logically true to people who do not think logically. In spite of this, they always manage to do so without being condescending. They try to dissolve the opposition using humour instead of raising their voice or repeating the entire argument. Instead, they explain themselves using an approach more suited to the audience. If the conflict persists, however, they use the minimal effective force required to solve the problem. This part of their conduct is crucial to keep the order of the game. All their decisions are based on the well-being of the group and the ability to be able to play the game sustainably. A game needs to be enjoyable, at least sometimes, for people to voluntarily play the same game over a long period of time. The rest of the ideal player’s behaviour is geared to make the game experience more pleasurable. They seem to lighten up the mood of the group every time they sit at the table. They are consistently having conversations and are not scared to mix in the odd humorous insult when they can. They love getting trash-talked and usually brush it off with a laugh if they don’t return the favour. They adjust their behaviour to the individual players and to the group. As a result, the other players enjoy playing with them. They are skilled and seldom makes mistakes. When they do, they usually laugh it off. When they win, they are humble and do not take credit. When they lose, they do not make excuses or think that the other players were picking on them. They take responsibility for their performance, they accept that luck is an intrinsic part of the game, and they do not feel a sense of entitlement. In fact, they seem to enjoy the game more than when they lose than when they win. Other players gravitate towards them even though they do not particularly seek attention. The list could keep going but I think you get the picture I am trying to paint.
I hope I did a decent enough job to convince you that there is a dynamic spectrum of possible Monopoly Deal table behaviours varying between good and evil. I also hope that you prefer to emulate the good one. You would think that the creators of the game would make it easier for players to be good rather than evil. A circle filled with evil players is unstable and the game would burn out quickly, whereas, a well-designed game with good players could be played eternally. Therefore, if the creators of the game cared about the game being played, they would have designed it in a way that would facilitate good to prevail over evil in the long term.
I wanted to explore why it is easier to cheat and quit than it is to be disciplined and virtuous. Why is it so much easier to snooze your alarm than it is to get up right away? Why is it easier to sit on the couch after dinner than it is to go for a walk? Why is it easier to lie than it is to tell the truth? “Science” might reveal a piece of the puzzle. First, evolution does not select for ideal Monopoly Deal players. Instead, it selects for genes and sets of behaviors that ensure survival and reproduction. It is somewhat incredible that features such as cooperation, love, and the ability to organize ourselves in societies have emerged. It may be that the health of the system is a prerequisite for individuals to flourish. Second, let’s consider the path of least resistance. If you take a hose with water flowing and split it into three smaller equally sized hoses. There should be an equal flow rate in each one. Then, if you apply some pressure on one of them, the flow rate will decrease in the hose with the resistance and increase in the two other ones. As far as I am concerned, the water molecules do not see the smallest opening and choose to flow in the other ones. They simply obey the laws of physics. It often requires more resources in the short term to do the right thing. A similar thing is observed within the second law of thermodynamics. It states that any isolated system tends towards disorder. Let’s oversimplify a little more. If you don’t ever clean your room, it will get dirtier with time. It is very unlikely that it gets more orderly. A fruit will tend to rot once you detach it from its energy source. People die and become dust if they do not eat and exercise. Does this trend towards disorder apply to the universe we call home? Yes. Does this mean that we must put on our favourite pyjamas, eat a bunch of ice cream and cry ourselves to sleep for the rest of our lives? Maybe, but keep in mind that is what the bad Monopoly Deal player would do. The good news is that the universe is a big place. Even though the universe is heading towards disorder and equilibrium, it does not imply that parts of it cannot become more orderly. Take your house for example. The house itself can get dirtier even if you clean your room. Therefore, the remedy to our entropy problem would be to all clean our rooms. Sorry for the Peterson joke. But seriously, we can create order in our local environment by doing work. The law of entropy basically says: If you do not work, things tend to get worse.
Of course, the explanation above is nowhere near exhaustive. My hope was to use big science concepts to fool you into thinking that I know what I am talking about. Are human beings like the water molecules who simply follow the path of least resistance? This is another way of asking if we have free will. The idea of determinism is daunting to most since it strips away all personal agency. I am still trying to make sense of this concept. As of now, I think we have no reason to believe we have the libertarian sense of free will. If you went back in time, you could not have done anything differently. Instead, I am sympathetic to the compatibilists out there and Arthur Schopenhauer who famously said that: “Man can do what he wills but cannot will what he wills”. This might be my way to deceive myself so I can keep playing the game without thinking it is pointless to do so.
I think it is obvious by now that it is harder to be good sport than a bad sport. It gets worse. Even if you manage to pull off the heroic feat of acting out the ideal, other players will do everything in their power to bring you down to their level. Why? There are two reasons I can think of. The first occurs when the people who limit your growth genuinely want what is best for you. You see this type of behaviour in parents who attempt to protect their kids. The issue with this approach is that things are dangerous and difficult in the real world. In fact, risk-taking is an integral part of life. You cannot win at Monopoly Deal without first exposing your properties. Educated risk-taking is a more valuable lesson to model for children. The second reason for people actively trying to bring you down is because it does not make them feel good about themselves. Your actions serve as a mirror for their own behaviour. People are pretty good at justifying their choices to themselves. If you’re like me, I am sure you said something like “it’s OK, I ate healthy all week” as you are about to inhale a whole pizza. I am not saying that we should never treat ourselves or mix in some self-love. However, the problem occurs when complacently starts being our default. A common example of this is when the designated driver and still attends the party. Some people feel uncomfortable that someone is sober. It is even worse if the sober person is having fun because it shatters their belief that alcohol is required to have fun. Our first instinct is to peer pressure them into drinking and behaving like us. A true friend is someone that will see you act out in the world and genuinely tell you, “good for you, I am glad this is happening to you”. It is not someone who will try to dissuade you from trying out this new diet. It is crucial to be weary of whom we spend our time with and whom we consider friends. Just keep in mind that there are two ways to build the greatest sandcastle. You can build the greatest sandcastle. Alternatively, it is much easier to step on all the other ones.
I am not quite done with the negative stuff yet. Acting out the ideal does not make you pick better cards in Monopoly Deal. Good players pick bad cards. Bad players pick good cards. The cards you pick are independent of your behaviour at the table and your moral resume. So why in the world would you bother being a good sport when it is harder and does not make you pick better cards? I personally went down this rabbit hole. It took me to this dark place where I questioned everything. This state of chaos lasted about 3 months. It made me wonder why I strived to be this ideal. But worse, it made me wonder why I was playing the game at all.
Should you quit playing the game? What is the alternative if you do not play the game? We do not know. It could be eternal bliss. It could be eternal suffering. But if I had to bet, it would be eternal nothing. In this nothingness scenario, there are no thoughts or sense of self. Were you happier before you were born than you are playing the game? Maybe if you play the game poorly, if you’re dealt terrible cards, or if another player makes your life a living hell. I do not think it is the case, however. One thing we can learn from Viktor Frankl is that human beings can find meaning in the worst circumstances. Although life is filled with suffering, quitting the game removes the opportunity to grow. Nothing has no potential. When you are in hell, it is all potential. Things can always get worse, but there is more room for improvement than there is for deterioration. Furthermore, your decision of exiting the game has ripples on the other players who decided to stay. It will most likely leave them with a great deal of suffering. Do you value your suffering more than another player’s suffering? There is no judgement for those who decide to exit the game and there may be circumstances where it is better to do so.
So, we should play the game. That’s good. We have figured that out. Now the question is, how should you play the game considering the asymmetry between the energy required to be a good sport and to be a pain for everyone? Fact is, we woke up one day and realized that we were playing the game. We won’t be playing forever so we might as well make the most of it. If you decided you still want to play the game, this implies that suffering is a value worth minimizing. Which type of player do you think experiences less suffering and cognitive dissonance? I think it is self-evident. Thus, if one desires to limit their suffering and maximize their well-being, they must strive to live up to the good sport ethos. If there is no reason to do anything, then there is also no reason to not do anything. I mean, what else better do you have to do? The alternatives are nothing or hell on earth. It makes the decision trivial.
The good news is that living this way gives you a deep sense of meaning. Human beings are wired for growth. It feels right to live this way. It feels like you are doing what you should be doing. That is where the magic is. This magic is often referred to as being in a state of flow. It is also known colloquially as being in the zone. In education, we have the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). It suggests that growth is maximized when the individual is exposed to an idea that they do not yet fully understand but that they have enough knowledge to grapple with. If the task is too easy, there is no growth. If the task is too difficult, there is also no growth. Thus, the optimal learning environment lies when the individual has one foot in the known and the other in the unknown. They have enough stability to withstand the threat of new information, but not too much to remain stagnant. The ancient Chinese symbol of the yin yang represents many things. To me, the snake-like path that separates the two halves illustrates this mode of being. This path is the destination we strive so hard to reach. You know when you are on the path. Do not fool yourself by thinking it is easy to stay on the path. In fact, it is the hardest place to stay. Humans are imperfect, so we will veer off at times. We will get caught in our old ways. We will get swept off by the unpredictability of life’s events. But the crucial thing is to always aim to get back to this way of life. Hold on to the center.
This way of being can have a tremendous impact on your quality of life. It may not though. Remember? Good players pick up bad cards sometimes. Some people are dealt a bad hand that truly limits their potential. That is why we need a philosophy that withstands those conditions. Let us take the myth of Sisyphus as an extreme case. This man was cursed with having to eternally carry a heavy boulder up a mountain only to immediately roll it back down. If that is not picking bad cards, then I am not sure what is. But he discovered that he could find meaning even in doing such a meaningless task by focusing on the progress. My brother who is an avid gamer also made the joke that Sisyphus would rejoice in the task if the gods gave him XP for every trip up the hill. I think the takeaway from Sisyphus is that your living conditions might be out of your control, but you can control your interpretation of those conditions. Is your perception any less real than your “objective” life? Would you rather have a good internal or external state? Besides, I do think that being a good sport actually does increase your probability of winning in the long run. Humans deeply admire the archetype of the hero. Thus, if one is to mimic the hero, other players consciously or subconsciously admire them. In the context of a game, this can be extremely useful for the role model. For example, if there is a situation where a player has the choice to pick on the hero or the cheater, there is a higher probability of picking on the bad sport. Moreover, being a good sport makes you more likeable. You will get invited to more games which will give you more net wins than your counterparts. The deep friendships formed from being likeable will also pay dividends in the long term. The relationships we form are arguably the most meaningful endeavour.
We now know that one’s life, or at least our perception of it, can dramatically improve by doing the work. But it gets better! You can impact other people. It never stops astonishing me how much impact we have on the world. Let’s consider a few concepts that help us explain the mechanics of our influence. First, let’s consider the six handshakes rule. It is theorized that the average person is six or fewer social connections away from anyone on the globe. This partly explains why we say “it’s such a small world” so often. Cell phone data may help us empirically test this theory. The butterfly effect is another concept that can help us explain our impact on the world for better or worse. The butterfly effect originates from chaos theory and states that small deviations in a complex system can have large effects. The name came from the concept that a butterfly flapping its wings in Asia could cause a chain of events that lead to a hurricane in California. If you look at waves in any body of water, for example. When a crest of a wave encounters a trough, they cancel each other. If two crests meet, the amplitude of the wave doubles, and the same is true if two troughs meet. All our interactions act as droplets in the giant lake of the world. When combined with other people’s, your crests and troughs can have a tremendous impact. Lastly, we need to mention the effect of compounding. The obvious example is compound interest which makes it advantageous to start investing as early as possible. The same can be said about acquiring a skill in your 20s. It would compound and have a greater impact than if you had two weeks to live. I enjoy this principle because it puts emphasis on the urgency present to be our best selves. All this is nice because we have something to work with. But like everything else, the most powerful things in life can be used in both directions. If you are selfish (because it is easier to be) and you decide to show up late to a meeting, to not do your dishes, or to lie to your partner, the same 3 principles work against you. Thus, every time you make a decision, you are deciding to make the world a better or worse place. Uncle Ben in Spiderman summed it up perfectly: “With great power comes great responsibility”.
I hope the previous dialogue can help you take on the weight of the world. It is exactly this adoption of responsibility that prevents us from becoming bitter Monopoly Deal players. The best place to start this journey is focusing on what you can control. Start with your perceptions. Then maybe put some order in your life. If you have some energy to spare, only then you can move on to help the other players of the game. This dance between self-actualization and self-transcendence is the way. Who knows how good the game could get?