THE LUDIC FALLACY

So much worse for the facts

Reality is not a game.

Games have rules. They are organised. They have specified moves. They have restrictions. Most importantly, they have finite outcomes. You know what to expect, and what you should ignore. For instance, in a game of chess, you know a pawn can only move forward and capture diagonally. You don't have to worry that your opponent will make a surprise move with their pawn. Even if a pawn catches you unawares, it is only as dictated by the rule. Everything is set. But reality isn't that organised. Reality is rough.

In a fight competition- an organised one, you know what to expect. There are rules. And here is a common rule in martial arts competitions: don't hit below the belt. Fine. But are there rules guiding a surprise attack and brawl on the street? I don't think so. So, don't go into a street fight expecting that your opponent wouldn't hit below the belt. That's a misuse. 

The misuse of games to model real-life situations is the Ludic fallacy.

The adjective Ludic comes from the latin noun Ludus which means "play, game, sports, pastimes."

The Ludic fallacy is present in instances where you address real-life with the expectations of neatness and crispness of games. Imagine a martial artist- a gold medalist in fact, in a street fight. Well, the rules that won him his gold medal don't apply here. At any point during the struggle, his fellow brawler can pull a knife and stab him. No rules. The martial artist may cry "that is unfair." But who says that it is unfair? Remember there are no rules.

The Ludic fallacy also affects ardent theorists who have one theory or another with which they map and predict reality. The side effect to being an ardent theorist is your blindness to randomness.

Life is random. It is filled with fluid unpredictable events. The presence of human beings with freewill makes most of our theories moot at some point. To fall for the Ludic fallacy is to mistake the map for the territory. To commit this fallacy is to overlay the neat for the rough. Maps are great. But they are not as intimate as having feet on the ground. The disadvantage of the Ludic fallacy is to have your heart broken because your neat theories don't match reality.

There are extremes to falling for the Ludic fallacy. I can think of a classic example of the extremities of Ludic fallacy in this quote: "if theory conflicts with the facts, so much worse for the facts" which is popularly attributed to Johan Gottlieb Fichte.

When certain theorists see that their theories do not correlate with real-life facts, they double down on those theories and instead tell you that reality is the one at fault. Some theorists won't mind 'a little genocide' to ensure that the crispness of their theories come to life.

In summary, the Ludic fallacy is more of a mindset- a way of viewing the world than anything else. At some point you have to admit that organised games and neat theories poorly interpret and imitate reality. However, curiosity without the impulsive jump to conjure theories is better for you than the Ludic fallacy. I know because I have practised it well enough to tell. The Ludic fallacy is fragile. Curiosity is antifragile.

Have a curious weekend.

Emmanuel.