June 23, 2009
-
We Will Rock You
Perhaps the most disturbing trend currently in America is the widespread disagreement over the rules of Rock-Paper-Scissors.
This is actually the most important affair currently unfolding in the U.S.—which is why you see so little news about it. The biggest stories, such as the newest intelligence findings of the CIA and the specific details for our military's strategy in Afghanistan, don't make headlines. And you don't see anything on the Rock-Paper-Scissors controversy either. That's how big this is.
The rule with which this terrible disagreement is concerned is, of course, the rule of count. What should the count be when playing rock-paper-scissors? You will probably be surprised to know that the opinions actually range from as low as two to as high as seven.
And why is this so important? Why, because RPS is the de facto decision making tool which has underlied the entire history of Western civilization except before the middle ages. From the last PopTart to who gets to hold the remote, from whose last name to use in marriage to whether or not to adopt, from whose face gets to go on what currency to who got to step on the moon first—RPS is the essential means of dispute-resolution for humans.
However, I must add, by far the single most important thing Rock-Paper-Scissors decides is who is best at Rock-Paper-Scissors.
As a recent example, the reason it took U.S. snipers so long to target the pirates holding the U.S. captain hostage last month is because the advisor in the Defense Department who represented that viewpoint had a rather predictable penchant for paper. He eventually learned to vary his throws enough that he won a best-of-seven and the snipers were given the go-ahead.
And clearly this problem needs to be cleared up before any other problems we face. For this is the only dilemma which cannot be solved with a round of RPS, since that would be like voting on whether or not to have a democracy. We need to know the rules first.
Thus, let us take a look at the options.
The Seven-Count
What of the seven-count? For those who don't know, this count goes Rock-Paper-Scissors-1-2-3-shoot.
When confronted with such a count, one wonders why the participating players would not also spin around three times, do the chicken dance, macarena, and the YMCA, and then throw their play. Why so many steps? The person who invented this count could surely make an afternoon of preparing a simple packet of ramen noodle soup. Like a sword collecter forced to slowly examine a sword starting at the hilt, I would feel while playing this count that we really ought to just get to the point.
The same reasoning can be applied to both the six and five-count. But what of the four-count? The four-count is certainly in vogue in our day and age—but is it the one we should prefer? I think not, for several reasons.
The Hollywood Count
The four-count, also known as the "Hollywood count," goes Rock-Paper-Scissors-shoot. But whence comes the 'shoot'? The name and essence of the game is Rock-Paper-Scissors, so any additional steps require additional justification. For if we add one new specimen to the game, who knows what people will begin dreaming up next: bear claws, pitchforks, or maybe even bunny rabits, like people do for shadows. The point here is simply that this fourth step is a deviation from the base of RPS; thus, we need to know what this foreign creature is doing as an added step in our game.
But what reason can be given for adding the 'shoot'? Certainly to all first impressions, all the word signifies is a pre-emptive displeasure with one's choice of throw. So is there a hidden purpose to this enigmatic caboose?
Perhaps people think of it like a launch pad for their throws. They are shooting their throws into the field of battle. However, this doesn't make any sense. For the concept of RPS is not of people loading concealed bazookas with their object of choice until finally shooting it at their opponent. Shooting has nothing to do with it. Rather when someone throws paper, a person who throws scissors can cut the person's hand to indicate the victory.
If, on the other hand, the scissors had to cut the paper while flying through the air, barely anyone would ever win a game of RPS. How likely is it for a pair of scissors to cut a piece of paper in half while flying through the air? And furthermore, since there's no shooting actually involved in playing the game, we'd never know if the scissors actually succeeded in cutting the paper while flying through the air, and thus we'd never know who won, thus defeating the entire point. And if people then went and actually got the paper and scissors to try . . . well I think you can see the problem with that.
Other than that, does the 'shoot' really do anything? It appears not. I'm reminded of Paolo in The Princess Diaries pithily remarking during the princess's facial about the concept of the cucumbers on her eyes, "Want to know a big secret? The cucumbers do nothing."
Thus, the Hollywood count seems to fall prey to the same problem of superfluity all the higher counts encountered. Just like the thirteen original Colonies began to realize about the rule of England in the 1770s, players who give it any thought will realize that the 'shoot' is completely unneeded.
The Triple Count
Thus we come to the three-count, i.e. the Triple count. The Triple count is simply rock-paper-scissors, in which each person throws their play on the scissors. The Triple count not only suffers from no arguments against it, but it has many positive reasons to support it.
To start, it is the most epic; you can throw on Queen's 'We Will Rock You' and do the count according to the legendary three-count beat. We could argue the Triple count is the most poetic for having the same amount of syllables as the first line of a haiku or as half a line of iambic pentameter. The Triple count also represents the triangle, the strongest of all shapes. And it parallels many other three-step processes in our culture: "On your mark, get set, go!" "Ready, aim, fire!" "One more song!" etc.
The heart of reality is a Trinity, in fact. (Though one should not think of the Incarnation as the 'shoot.' That Incarnation is the second nature of the second person of the Trinity, and is thus still intrinsic to the Trinity. Thus, the four-count fails on theological grounds as well.)
The Two-Count
In dispatching with the two-count, we need only summon the quote, 'Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.' While this count is to be commended for its revolt against the higher counts, it goes too far. Our guiding quote could be ammended to read, 'Birds should fly south for the winter, but no more south.' In the case of the two-count, our birds seem to have wound up somewhere in Antarctica, thus completely defeating the point of their journey.
Conclusion
In conclusion we see that the Triple count is efficient, simple, elegant, and traditional, while it cuts out all the unecessary baggage associated with the other counts, but doesn't leave us standing nearly naked in the cold as does the two-count. Certainly in the three-count Goldilocks has found the count which is just right.
Whatever the outcome of this tumultuous conflict, the result is sure to rock our world. Or, perhaps I should say, as the the third rock from the sun, will paper our world . . .
Comments (13)
I always played on a three count I guess. We would say "rock, paper, scissors" and do it on scissors. Of course, slamming our fist on our palm with each word.
I'm also a proponent of the three-count, although I never would have been able to give as many reasons as you just did here. My argument would be something like: "Stop wasting time. One-two BAM." I'd be a good dictator but not a good president; you'd be a good president.
@flowerspushthrudirt -
I concur.
Oh, yes- I probably should have been a bit clearer on that. I’m living with a whole bunch of other students in one house in a nicer area of town. I haven’t actually run into Dawkins yet, but I have seen him cycle past my window on occasion.
He does indeed take some pretty unfair jabs in The God Delusion. (As an aside, I too am extremely fond of Swineburne) I also felt like he made some really hasty, unsupported, and very disgruntled jumps in his conclusions. Yet you do raise some fantastic points about him as well. I agree especially with the point that perhaps he can be useful in urging people to form coherent worldviews. I’m coming to increasingly find that Christian education does a surprisingly poor job at equipping students in this manner. (I remain personally biased towards home-schooling, but this is an entirely different conversation for another time.)
No, I don’t have any friends who came over here with me. I spent most of my high school years abroad (I lived in Greece and then South Central America) though, so I’m pretty used to adventuring oversees on my own.
The accent thing has actually caused me quite a bit of annoyance; while it does cause people to spout off a list of questions, you’re certainly correct- it’s definitely not as cool as having an English accent back in America. Perhaps this is just foolish, but I have indeed tried to fake an accent a few times for fun already. Though only when ordering tea or something that requires very little actual conversation on my part—I’m not sure I’d be able to pull it off otherwise! It’s easier than I expected to start unintentionally peppering my language with a few different inflections though. I went to a high church service this past weekend and found it delightfully fun to discover myself singing hymns with a British accent.
good post, but i must say i disagree with the conclusion; clearly, the four-count is optimal. it gives you equal time to consider each option before making your final decision. in this sense, the "scissors" option gets treated unfairly on the three-count because some of the time and brain power normally allotted for consideration is now spent actually making the shape of choice.
this mechanism could result in a less frequent choice of "scissors" (because the player hasn't had ample time to get comfortable with this option) and the eventual downfall of RPS as understood by intelligent gamers. if "scissors" is at a statistical disadvantage choice-wise; then a smart player is more likely to choose paper. thus, two smart players will always tie with paper.
the somali pirates get the girl and sail off into the sunset, neil armstrong stays in the ship, and the last pop tart goes stale.
because the four-count allows for a uniform distribution of consideration time over options, the likelihood of a "scissors" choice is equal to that of "rock" or "paper." no option has a statistical advantage over another and perpetual stalemate is happily avoided.
Three count, definitely.
Though, I feel you've overlooked an equally influential decision maker.
"1, 2, 3, not it!"
@jim_the_american -
Interesting point, and I certainly agree that that would constitute a powerful reason to prefer the four-count, if it were true. Part of the problem, though, is that I feel RPS is a game much akin to poker - you play the people, not just the odds. So even before a round is even going, figuring out what a person will throw is a huge psychological issue to resolve, which is ultimately what makes RPS so awesome. And it seems that people pick their throws based on factors other than the count - that scissors comes last in the count would only influence people with no prior conception of the game. People who play RPS consistently would give every option fair consideration.
Although that probably does play some limited role, I definitely give all the options equal weight until guaging what I feel my opponent will throw, which thus really seems to be the deciding factor. A good point though.
@Dominic_Ville -
@von_diesem_kopf -
@show_me_your_glory -
@flowerspushthrudirt -
Good to see some fellow three-counters.
Dominic - I think I would make a good advisor on policy decisions, laying everything out, and then you could be the leader that gets things done. Which could be a dictator or a president; sometimes they end up pretty indistinguishable.
Love this. Totally love it, in so many places that I can't remember them all. I'm showing this to my mom, haha...
Personally, I've always done "Rock, Paper, Scissors, 1, 2, 3!" so I guess I'm a six-er by default. I do like it that way, because you establish your options with the first three counts (thereby diffusing any arguments afterwards when someone tries to inject an "atom bomb" into the mix), and then you have your basic "1, 2, 3" at the end, with no confusion about when to make your move.
What say you?
~V
where do you get this seven count from? that is crazy. my friend says majority of people throw out rock first. i dunno. i kinda suck at that game.
i think you might have thought a little to much about this- I like the Hollywood version- regardless of it's point LOL
@azndood4you -
This is in response to another fan of the game who wrote a piece on it who was in favor of the Hollywood count. I actually didn't know about the seven-count before he brought it up in his piece. While we disagree on the right count, we both agree the seven-count is crazy.
@angeltears2431 -
"i think you might have thought a little to much about this"
Perhaps.
@TheMarriedFreshman -
Longer counts do help with synchronization, I do admit, but the more impatient among us are to ansy for that to come into it, I suppose. It probably is a reflection of personality types even - for some might want to savor it, and there's no need to hurry - or other battle-starved RPS mongers need to get the game done now! So I have absolutely no inclination for the six-count, but that's just the need for efficiency in me talking.