Performance art, abuse, and links

Marina Abramović. Rhythm 0. 1974 A performance piece in which the artist presented the audience with a wide variety of objects that could be used on her, and then stayed immobile and passive for six hours while they did whatever they wanted. The result was abusive and horrifying. (e.g., cutting off her clothes, cutting her, pressing rose thorns into her, loading a gun and pressing it to her head.) At the end, when she walked toward her audience, they ran away.

This is thought provoking: The change in their behavior at the end makes me think that the only thing keeping many "civilized" people from behaving like brutal savages is the expectation that they will be held accountable for their actions. When there are no consequences, there are no inhibitions. Perhaps there was a dehumanizing aspect to the performance, and when she stopped being passive, there was a moment of, "Oh shit, that's a real person we just did that to!" The size of the audience would have added social proof to the mix, making abusive actions seem more acceptable just because some other people were doing it. And I wonder whether, on average, women told of the piece would have better predicted its brutality than men would have. (As men often have no idea why women are afraid of them, and what it's like. (Which is not to say that the abusers in the audience were all men; they weren't.))

On a related note, a TED talk: Why domestic violence victims don't leave.

In more enjoyable links:

This video on Electrostatic Discharge had me laughing.

Carry On Wayward Son - Maniacal 4 Trombone Quartet

Space Janitors is a wonderful show for geeks. It hits its stride around the third episode, and the episodes are short, so try it at least that long.

There's a second season of Enter The Dojo in progress! It is hilarious, though unfortunately sexist.

Badass bearded dragon. (Source?)

Cat helps out with the dirty laundry.

Puzzles with Rock-Paper-Scissors

Today, I thought of some variants on an otherwise trivial puzzle.

This will be Rock-Paper-Scissors, as played by a mathematician and/or game theorist, rather than (as it is played in real life) a psychological contest of reading your opponent's intentions.

In these puzzles, we will posit that your opponent knows your strategy, and plays optimally for their own benefit. (Assume each player cares only about their own income. No generosity and no spite for the other player.) So if your strategy is to play Rock, your opponent will play Paper. Your saving grace is that you are allowed to use a random ("mixed") strategy.

I hope that even those among us who are not mathematically inclined can intuit that the ideal strategy is to pick randomly from Rock, Paper, and Scissors, with equal chances of each.

But what happens if we throw off the symmetry of the game, not by changing the system, but by introducing different rewards for different wins?

Problem 1: Good old Rock. The payout from the loser to the winner is as follows: $9 if the winner throws Rock; $3 if the winner throws Scissors; $1 if the winner throws Paper.

Now you will lose by keeping the probabilities equal: Your opponent would throw Rock and count on winning much more to Scissors than they would lose to Paper. And you couldn't just throw Paper in anticipation of them throwing Rock, because they get to know your strategy, and they would just throw Scissors instead.

What strategy can you employ, that your opponent can't beat even if they know what it is?

( Basic hint from game theory. )

Problem 2: On the House. The payouts are the same as in problem 1, but instead of coming from the loser, they come from the bank. Does your strategy change, and if so, how?

I won't screen comments, so beware of spoilers if you read them. I'll post my answers in a day or two.

( Cut for white space. )