Mind-games and Children's Movies (sounds like a really weird dissertation, doesn't it?)
So, for no reason this morning, I was thinking about the showdown between Wesley and Vizzini (Inconceivable!) in the middle of the movie The Princess Bride.
Something always bugged me about that scene, but I'm going to cut here, as there are spoilers. So: if you haven't seen the movie, don't click.
Right, so the first time I saw the movie I was really young, and when it got to the scene with iocaine powder - the Battle of Wits, as Wesley calls it - and the big reveal at the end - they were both poisoned, ha HA! - I remember thinking, "Well, but - no fair, he rigged the game!"
He knew as soon as he sat down that the other man was going to die. It was deliberate and premeditated. And you can excuse it morally from the viewpoint that this is the man who's kidnapped Buttercup, and there's no other way to get her away from him, but just from the intellectual viewpoint - the battle of wits, wasn't. He cheated.
At least, that was what I thought then. And I never bothered thinking much about it thereafter, until something struck me in the shower.
Vizzini deserved to lose. That little pick-the-cup game, that wasn't the battle of wits at all. The battle of wits was, would you enter a game where you both agree that death are the stakes, and then let the other person set up the battlefield and call the rules?
He only had Wesley's word that that was even iocaine powder in the first place. It could have been anything. And if Vizzini chooses the right cup, he's got no guarantee that Wesley will drink, but if he chooses the wrong one, he's screwed. He can only lose in that situation.
But vanity gets the best of him - Wesley appealed to his conceit, and surely he can beat this stupid little pirate wannabe upstart. So he does something that I didn't fully appreciate the cleverness of the first time around - he switches glasses.
Original setup: glasses A and B, A's poisoned, B's clean. If Vizzini chooses A, they both drink, and he dies. If Vizzini chooses B, then likely or not Wesley will find a way not to drink, as he's not stupid enough to pick up the cup and just go "Well, time to die." Vizzini doesn't die, but odds aren't that good that Wesley does, either.
Switched: Now A's clean and B's poisoned. So if Vizzini chooses A, it's clean, and Wesley gets B, which is poisoned, but which he THINKS is clean - so he'll die. If Vizzini chooses B, then Wesley will THINK that he's poisoned, and find a way not to drink, so Vizzini shouldn't, either.
V's only real snag would be if Wesley was honorable enough to go through with suicide for the sake of meeting the terms of the deal. He's betting that he isn't. Not a bad way to level the playing field. Now the odds are pretty good in his favor.
Of course the truth is that they're both poisoned and Wesley's immune, which makes all of V's planning moot. But then: he made the decision to play the game. And that's when he lost. He trusted a self-proclaimed pirate to play fairly in a game to the death that the pirate himself set the terms of.
Furthermore: he had all the power at the beginning of the scene. He's got the Princess. He's got the upper hand. He should be the one setting up a rigged game. He's got control, and merrily hands it over to appease his own vanity, to prove he's the smartest of them all. And that is just stupid.
So I think I have that figured out, but - that scene with the door-knockers in Labyrinth? Dammit, I STILL think she was right! WTF!?
If you don't remember the set-up: there are two doors, each with its own talking door knocker, and it's that mind-numbing game of "One of us always lies, the other tells the truth, one door is good, one door is bad, you get one question."
She thinks for a bit, and then asks one door knocker: would he (pointing to the other knocker) say that this is the right door? And then takes the opposite of what's told to her as the truth.
Follow it out: four possible scenarios.
Knocker A: would Knocker B say that Door A is correct?
DOOM HAPPY DOOR
X X
(liar) (truth)
Knocker B would honestly say No.
So Knocker A lies and says Yes.
Which means the right answer is No.
Sarah picks Door B.
DOOM HAPPY DOOR
X X
(truth) (liar)
Knocker B would lie and say Yes.
So Knocker A truthfully says, Yes.
Which means the right answer is No.
Sarah picks Door B.
HAPPY DOOR DOOM
X X
(truth) (liar)
Knocker B would lie and say No.
So Knocker A truthfully says, No.
Which means the right answer is Yes.
Sarah picks Door A.
HAPPY DOOR DOOM
X X
(liar) (truth)
Knocker B would honestly say Yes.
So Knocker A lies and says, No.
Which means the right answer is Yes.
Sarah picks Door A.
... What am I missing? Any way I can figure it, she should be on her merry way to fame and fortune, stylin' and profilin', and instead BOOM! Oubliette.
Was the game rigged to start, or did she fuck something up, or did she go through all that just to accidentally open the wrong door?
Fuck, my head hurts. I think I'm just going to sing the Llama Song for a while.
Something always bugged me about that scene, but I'm going to cut here, as there are spoilers. So: if you haven't seen the movie, don't click.
Right, so the first time I saw the movie I was really young, and when it got to the scene with iocaine powder - the Battle of Wits, as Wesley calls it - and the big reveal at the end - they were both poisoned, ha HA! - I remember thinking, "Well, but - no fair, he rigged the game!"
He knew as soon as he sat down that the other man was going to die. It was deliberate and premeditated. And you can excuse it morally from the viewpoint that this is the man who's kidnapped Buttercup, and there's no other way to get her away from him, but just from the intellectual viewpoint - the battle of wits, wasn't. He cheated.
At least, that was what I thought then. And I never bothered thinking much about it thereafter, until something struck me in the shower.
Vizzini deserved to lose. That little pick-the-cup game, that wasn't the battle of wits at all. The battle of wits was, would you enter a game where you both agree that death are the stakes, and then let the other person set up the battlefield and call the rules?
He only had Wesley's word that that was even iocaine powder in the first place. It could have been anything. And if Vizzini chooses the right cup, he's got no guarantee that Wesley will drink, but if he chooses the wrong one, he's screwed. He can only lose in that situation.
But vanity gets the best of him - Wesley appealed to his conceit, and surely he can beat this stupid little pirate wannabe upstart. So he does something that I didn't fully appreciate the cleverness of the first time around - he switches glasses.
Original setup: glasses A and B, A's poisoned, B's clean. If Vizzini chooses A, they both drink, and he dies. If Vizzini chooses B, then likely or not Wesley will find a way not to drink, as he's not stupid enough to pick up the cup and just go "Well, time to die." Vizzini doesn't die, but odds aren't that good that Wesley does, either.
Switched: Now A's clean and B's poisoned. So if Vizzini chooses A, it's clean, and Wesley gets B, which is poisoned, but which he THINKS is clean - so he'll die. If Vizzini chooses B, then Wesley will THINK that he's poisoned, and find a way not to drink, so Vizzini shouldn't, either.
V's only real snag would be if Wesley was honorable enough to go through with suicide for the sake of meeting the terms of the deal. He's betting that he isn't. Not a bad way to level the playing field. Now the odds are pretty good in his favor.
Of course the truth is that they're both poisoned and Wesley's immune, which makes all of V's planning moot. But then: he made the decision to play the game. And that's when he lost. He trusted a self-proclaimed pirate to play fairly in a game to the death that the pirate himself set the terms of.
Furthermore: he had all the power at the beginning of the scene. He's got the Princess. He's got the upper hand. He should be the one setting up a rigged game. He's got control, and merrily hands it over to appease his own vanity, to prove he's the smartest of them all. And that is just stupid.
So I think I have that figured out, but - that scene with the door-knockers in Labyrinth? Dammit, I STILL think she was right! WTF!?
If you don't remember the set-up: there are two doors, each with its own talking door knocker, and it's that mind-numbing game of "One of us always lies, the other tells the truth, one door is good, one door is bad, you get one question."
She thinks for a bit, and then asks one door knocker: would he (pointing to the other knocker) say that this is the right door? And then takes the opposite of what's told to her as the truth.
Follow it out: four possible scenarios.
Knocker A: would Knocker B say that Door A is correct?
DOOM HAPPY DOOR
X X
(liar) (truth)
Knocker B would honestly say No.
So Knocker A lies and says Yes.
Which means the right answer is No.
Sarah picks Door B.
DOOM HAPPY DOOR
X X
(truth) (liar)
Knocker B would lie and say Yes.
So Knocker A truthfully says, Yes.
Which means the right answer is No.
Sarah picks Door B.
HAPPY DOOR DOOM
X X
(truth) (liar)
Knocker B would lie and say No.
So Knocker A truthfully says, No.
Which means the right answer is Yes.
Sarah picks Door A.
HAPPY DOOR DOOM
X X
(liar) (truth)
Knocker B would honestly say Yes.
So Knocker A lies and says, No.
Which means the right answer is Yes.
Sarah picks Door A.
... What am I missing? Any way I can figure it, she should be on her merry way to fame and fortune, stylin' and profilin', and instead BOOM! Oubliette.
Was the game rigged to start, or did she fuck something up, or did she go through all that just to accidentally open the wrong door?
Fuck, my head hurts. I think I'm just going to sing the Llama Song for a while.