Deception - Conundrums for Youth

What  do you say to the young about deception?

Of course we start with the premise that our kids should be honest and tell the truth and not lie or cheat.
This goes triple in our view of the kids relations with us.
Never lie to your parents.
To lie to parents will trigger profound and unhappy consequences.
We tell kids that trustworthiness is a most valuable trait, and that it can be lost so easily with a seemingly simple act of deception. We tell kids that their reputation for trustworthiness has to be earned, and that without it they will have an unhappy life.
Parents tend to speak in absolute terms about truth telling.
There is no middle ground; things are black or white.
And that message is repeated endlessly, with the hopes it will sink in, be internalized by youth.

Now let us consider youth sports.
I'm thinking typically of team sports and games.
Hide and seek for openers.
This is a pasttime that is founded on deception.
If one is not deceptive, one can not do well at the game.
To do well yields all sorts of benefits to the child, and they are encouraged to be deceptive.

Think of hockey, soccer, volleyball and other goal/point scoring games.
Again, success in these sports is often dependent upon deception - either at a team level or an individual level.

So can you now see the dissonance or disconnect between the message to youth as a general rule from elders, and in a specific application like games and sports.

And my question - is how to resolve this apparent conflict in what we say to youth?

I turn to game theory ( and what very little I know about it) for a framework of analysis.
In zero sum games it is permssible to deceive.
In non zero sum games it is not permissible.
That is my tentative conclusion.

I am of the view that is best to see human lives and conduct on this planet these days as being a non zero sum situation.
To paraphrase Buckminister Fuller - we ought to think that
"this is not a you OR me world, but rather a you AND me world."

We ought to arrange our affairs that our gains are not at the expense of others.
Rather our gains should benefit not only ourselves but others as well.

Still, we will often find ourselves in zero sum game situations.
The most dramatic of these situations is War.
In the Art of War - an enduring classic from Sun Tzu written 2500 years ago - it is said
"That all war is based on deception".
While we may try to justify any participation in a war as not only for our own benefit, but the benefit of humankind (say to stop an evil ruler from pursuing an evil path), in the limited context of the fight between two factions - it is a zero sum game. One wins at the expense of the other side's loss.

Of course most team sport and recreational games will be most often seen in a zero sum perspective.
One team wins, the other team loses. The fruits go to the winners.

But what about other contests that are commonplace in our experience.
Consider election campaigns - political or otherwise.
Or how about the competitive world of business - where only one individual or company will get the 'sale' and the other will be shut out.
Surely these are in some respects anyway, zero sum games.

So the next question becomes, in these situations, - political contests, or business contests, is deception permissible, or not.

I am leaning to the response that deception is indeed permitted in these situations.
And if that is an acceptable response, then how should that inform what we say to youth?

More on this later.
For now, I close content to have introduced the topic, and in a crude way set out my own preliminary views.

This makes Sense?

Earlier this weekend I purchased a new knife.
That is a pleasurable experience.
It's  a tool. One that could get a fair bit of use. Though I do have 6 other knives (just in the kitchen come to think on it) that I keep in circulation, and sharpened, and use. Now I have 7.

The new one is a clever. A Butcher's Cleaver the packaging proclaimed.
Plenty of substance and heft.
A classic profile and silhouette, and a nicely ground edge.

The handle at first glance is a bit too modern.
It has a synthetic ( that is man made material) handle in a tolerable grey blue colour pattern.
The blue, mostly to the centre of the handle face, has some protruding dimples to facilitate grip, which probably will help.

Other good news: it takes a keen edge.
I sharpened it a little with a small tool, and the result was more than satisfactory.

So overall I am pleased with the exercise of the acquisition, and early use.

But this materialism comes at a cost, or price.
What cost?
Well there is the interesting point.
Two bucks. Plus the guv vigorish at 15 points.

And candidly, that don't make too much sense.
The two buck price I mean.
It hardly seems enough.
How do they ( all the theys) do it ??

The sheer number of people directly involved in the creation and sale of the product,
including those that made or sourced the materials, and transported them, and packed them and shipped them, and stored them, and marketed them, and cashed you out -
wow, that's a lot of folk.

Then think of the transportation angle - how far all of the materials traveled to end up at one spot eventually represented by the location of the final product at point of sale.

Petroleum compounds from subterranean depths, to refineries, and plastic makers, and maybe latex from rubber trees, and then the rocks also from deep, to smelters and refineries, and steel makers, and on and on. Then pause.

And reflect on the fact that the assembly took place half a world away.The Middle Kingdom as they call themselves:China.

Then they ship it to a dollar store in Sudbury.
And then I take it to its new home.