>> "As many of the nuts as possible" doesn't sound too ambiguous, at 
>> least not
>> to me as a non-native speaker. If it does, that's probably what the 
>> game is
>> trying to show :)  It also makes the score obvious: the number of 
>> nuts. Not
>> compared to anything -- just the number of nuts.

I agree with your analysis BUT it makes my point.
You as a "non-native speaker" may just possibly get the point which is 
lost on the natives.

It says one thing but almost everyone who plays games anything like 
this will assume something different, as is exampled below -

> It is obvious - its a game, therefore there is an implicit 
> comparison.

Indeed. BUT the comparison in this case is intnded to be with "anyone 
who ever plays the game" and NOT with "the people who are playing the 
game this time. SO if someone sweeps the bowl clean in one swoop at 
the start they score badly.

This is not trickery or cheating, it is people being given VERY clear 
instructions and not listening to wjat they are told and overlaying 
assumptions that are not valid.

> Perhaps in other cultures this is different, but most of the US
> teaches their children to be competitive.  The point of the game
> (football, baseball, soccer, monopoly, etc) is to win.

Yes. But winning here is getting the most POSSIBLE not the most 
relative to the others playing at present. If we do the former in 
life, and has been ponted out, many cultures do, then we lose. Being 
king of the trash heap is a poor win if you could have been king of 
something far better.

> The instruction says "as many as possible."  There is no winning
> criteria, other than "many."

Absolutely.
So, people scrambling to empty the bowl are going to lose and casue 
everyone else to lose as well.

> Due to the competitive concepts taught
> as youth the winning criteria for everyone (as the game shows) is,
> "more than the next player."

My point exactly.
The WRONG criteria to "win" this game is adopted by assuming the 
competitive concepts taught since youth. And these also cause loss in 
'real life' as aell for much the same reasons. A real world example is 
depletion of a renewable resource which has a finite replenishment 
rate. In my country we for many years fished Orange Roughy at as fast 
a rate as possible. After a while it was discivered that they live to 
about 300 years old (!). Despite the implications of this 
fisherpeoples stil agitated and tend to agitate for resource damaging 
fishing rates that might ensure a fw more $ long term but which would 
harm them and everyone else long term. Not to mention the fish.


> It's obvious to everyone here what the winning criteria is when none
> is given, and given the minimal instructions.  It's an assumption,
> yes, but it's pretty universally accepted.

Criteria were given.
Very simple.
Very straight forwards.
Very ignored.
Very wrong outcome.

In such cases unisversal acceptance just helps hurry the disasterous 
outcome on its way.


    Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist