Imagine that you serve on the jury of an only-child sole-custody case following a relatively messy divorce. To make things concrete, the authors describe an experiment from another study in which they ask subjects to play the role of a juror in a child custody case: If that's true, then "choosing" one of the options should be the same as "rejecting" the other. All things considered, A and B are of equal value. Choice A and Choice B differ across a few dimensions, but those differences cancel each other out when taken as a whole. One example is being asked to either "choose" or "reject" one option out of two that have equal value. This reason-based approach makes us susceptible to framing effects and the nuances of language when we are presented with a choice. As opposed to a rational approach where we assign values to all options and outcomes and just leave it to math. In their paper, the authors observe that we often fall into "reason-based models" of decision making, where we search -sometimes retroactively- for reasons that support the choice we make. Or did it go back even further than that? Had the way the choice between Amita and Sabal been presented in a way that made me choose one over another? This, in turn, made me think specifically of a study by Eldar Shafir, Itamar Simonson, and Amos Tversky that shows how decisions can be biased by framing them in certain ways so that we seek out some pieces of information and ignore others. I was paying attention to information that supported the correctness of my decision and ignoring information that called it into question. What I was doing was rationalizing my choice.
SHANGRI LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU, AMITA. And that whole "Let's fund a war by controlling the opium trade" schtick.
Let's just ignore that time she wanted to let her fellow soldiers die so that I could instead pursue some valuable information. She was for progress, right? Progress is good.
I started thinking about what Amita was fighting for and how it aligned with my values. After that choice was made, though, I was all in. I chose Amita for what it's worth, though I really liked Sabal's character and felt kind of bad about it. I deliberated carefully when the point of no return came, but I made my choice as to who the story's main character would back. Yet completing the game eventually required me to take a stand and support one leader over the other. Both Amita and Sabal have good and bad qualities by my standards. Just kind of milquetoast, especially next to the extreme highs and lows of Amita's agenda.Īs a player, this is an interesting choice. He was charming and had boundless compassion for his fellow soldiers, but he also wanted to maintain a cultural heritage that includes traditional social castes. Sabal, on the other hand, struck me as staying closer to the middle of the road. She wants better rights for women, for example, but she's willing to fund the revolution by selling opium. Amita is harshly pragmatic but socially progressive. Two people struggle for leadership of The Golden Path: Amita and Sabal. In the course of shooting everything that moves, your character becomes entangled with The Golden Path, a group of rebels trying to overthrow a very well dressed and oddly charming dictator.
It's an open world, first person shooter set amidst political change in a fictional Himalayan country.
0 kommentar(er)
