1. Introduction
Rock paper scissors, also known as scissors paper rock, and rarely ever referred to as paper rock scissors, is a game typically played between two people, where one match of rock paper scissors (RPS) consists of both players throwing out a hand gesture at the same time after a brief countdown. These hand gestures represent a rock, paper, or a pair of scissors, respectively (some variants also allow for other objects, such as guns. However, we will only be considering the usage of actual guns to gain a tactical advantage). Rock beats scissors by denting them, scissors beats paper by cutting it, and paper beats rock by wrapping itself around the rock. Oftentimes, competitive games of RPS take the form of best-of-three matches, though quick one-of matches are commonplace when it is necessary to decide a “winner” of something between two people, and a coin-flip isn’t an option.
Given the nature of the game, one might prematurely assume that winning a match of RPS is no different to winning a coin flip. It is seemingly impossible to anticipate the move of your opponent and develop a counter strategy, as it is usually equally likely that your opponent has actually chosen the perfect counter strategy to your counter strategy, resulting in an impasse. This is the pitfall that many new, and even experienced players of RPS face. This paper highlights a new strategy, guaranteeing victory in a match of RPS once the prerequisites are satisfied, which is accessible to even those new to the deceptively simple game of RPS.
The authors hold no responsibility for the possible ramifications of following the strategy outlined in this paper, possible ramifications including: loss of friendships, imprisonment, death, and in extreme cases, losing your game of RPS.
2. Important Definitions
Before detailing the strategy, it is important to define a handful of other terms that will be referenced throughout the strategy guide, as some of these terms may initially be unfamiliar to those who are only familiar with the game of RPS, and nothing else.
2.1 Associate
An item or living being is an associate of somebody if there is a close relationship from this “somebody” to the item or living being in question. This relationship need not be reciprocated. Using John Doe as an example, some associates of his may include:
2.2 Intimidation
While the feeling of being intimidated is a primal emotion that many of us have had the misfortune of feeling, seldom do people get the opportunity to be the ones intimidating. Intimidation is any series of actions, or any one solitary action, that makes the target(s) feel intimidated. Continuing to use the example of John Doe, examples of intimidation include:
2.3 Fear
Ultimately, it is difficult to assuage whether an attempt of intimidation is successful without understanding the meaning of fear. This section will try to briefly establish the concept of fear, for the lucky few that are unfamiliar. Departing from the story of John Doe, some examples of fear include:
3. The Strategy
Regarding RPS as purely a game of chance results in a game with little strategy to be had. However, understanding the many psychosocial dynamics that are at play in society are key to determining a winning strategy for RPS. These strategies usually require some amount of knowledge about the person you are competing against, such as knowledge of their associates (defined above), however, a general strategy is also included in case this knowledge is for whatever reason unobtainable. This paper will not go into detail as to how to obtain such information.
3.1 A General Strategy
This strategy is to be used when very little information is known about your opponent, and it is difficult to procure any information. It will be assumed that the opponent is a blank slate.
Materials list:
Procedure:
Your move | Opponent’s move |
Rock | Scissors |
Paper | Rock |
Scissors | Paper |
Figure 1: Matchups in RPS that result in your victory
3.2 The Ideal Strategy
The ideal strategy differs from the general strategy as it requires knowledge of your opponent’s associates in advance, as well as further amounts of preparation in order to succeed. In spite of this, this strategy is considered ideal because it avoids the risk of your opponent overpowering you when you intimidate them, as advance preparation for your intimidation method ensures that your opponent will be overcome with fear, and will also be powerless in undermining your intimidation at that immediate moment.
The overall strategy follows the same steps as in 3.1, replacing step (ii) with a different intimidation method, focusing on an associate of your choice. Therefore, this section will instead focus on methods to identify associates of your opponent, and suggested means of intimidation to maximize fear.
Associate | Intimidation Method | Notes |
Spouse | Hostage victim | The efficacy of this choice of associate is dependent on the nature of the relationship between your opponent and their spouse. Considering the example of John Doe, his spouse Jane Doe may not be the most ideal associate, whereas typically, spouses guarantee success. |
Pet | See notes | While it may be easier to take a pet as hostage as they are typically smaller, their lack of understanding of human language proves controlling them difficult. Outright disposal of the pet from your opponent’s life may prove sufficient for intimidation. When provided with multiple options, use this list as a reference for most valuable associate to least:
|
Close friend | See notes | Ideal intimidation method is highly dependent on the nature of your opponent. Consider having your opponent take the Rice Purity Test and choose an intimidation method based on the result: 90-100 - Anything will do. Your opponent is a soft soul. 80-89 - 70-79 - 60-69 - At this range, it is more than likely that your opponent has many secrets that they would prefer to remain hidden, potentially with a close friend. 0-59 - The strategy has met its match. Nothing can possibly faze this person, except perhaps their own mortality. Resort to 3.1 |
Figure 2: Common candidates for associates, recommended intimidation methods, and additional notes
4. Conclusion
Ultimately, guaranteeing victory in the turbulent game of RPS is dependent on understanding the societal context the game exists in. We can all fall prey to the whims of our brains in response to intimidation. Surviving in the dog-eat-dog world of RPS is a matter of becoming the intimidator, as opposed to the intimidated (the eating dog, as opposed to the eaten dog, if you will). Ignoring this reality can be considered reflective of the losing attitude many hold towards life. However, nothing is truly up to the Great Random. Taking the weaknesses of your fellow man in mind, victory will not be clean, but it will be in your hands.
Further research is recommended in understanding how to guarantee victory against those without emotions or fear of mortality, such as against computers. Considering growing fears in society regarding a robot takeover, discovering a weakness of computers in the game of RPS can then be translated to strategies to prevent the computer uprising. If computers are truly made in our image, then they will fall the same way we do. Our human hands can only hope for perfection, but everything will fall short, even our treacherous machines.