The hypothesis of sabotage for social reasons (including imaginary ones, when you think someone else should win but other people actually don’t care) sounds reasonable to me, but in a way unrelated to playing with the nephew.
I think that in ancient evolutionary environment, people had only one or perhaps two status ledgers. (Not like today where each sport or a computer game has its own ledger of winners.) Because if you tried to act above your status, the person with actually higher status then hurt you, to remind you of your place. If someone is stronger than you and also happens to have more friends than you, then when you have a mammoth-painting competition, you need to make sure you lose against this person.
So, losing for social reasons, yes; but not for politeness, but for survival. You lose to avoid getting punished for winning more than your status would permit. The reason for the champion to win, is that otherwise the champion will kick your ass after the tournament—you may be better at Magic, but he is still stronger and has more loyal friends. I believe this is what our instinct tuned by evolution is screaming at us. Even if it is not true in given situation, i.e. it is unlikely that a defeated Magic champion would actually attack you; because that is not how things would have ended in an ancient tribe.
I think Bruce is also related to protecting your ego; if you invest everything you have in the game, and still lose, you’re inferior. But if you’re lazy or don’t take it too seriously, and get back luck… then you *could* have won, had you really wanted to.
The hypothesis of sabotage for social reasons (including imaginary ones, when you think someone else should win but other people actually don’t care) sounds reasonable to me, but in a way unrelated to playing with the nephew.
I think that in ancient evolutionary environment, people had only one or perhaps two status ledgers. (Not like today where each sport or a computer game has its own ledger of winners.) Because if you tried to act above your status, the person with actually higher status then hurt you, to remind you of your place. If someone is stronger than you and also happens to have more friends than you, then when you have a mammoth-painting competition, you need to make sure you lose against this person.
So, losing for social reasons, yes; but not for politeness, but for survival. You lose to avoid getting punished for winning more than your status would permit. The reason for the champion to win, is that otherwise the champion will kick your ass after the tournament—you may be better at Magic, but he is still stronger and has more loyal friends. I believe this is what our instinct tuned by evolution is screaming at us. Even if it is not true in given situation, i.e. it is unlikely that a defeated Magic champion would actually attack you; because that is not how things would have ended in an ancient tribe.
That was the point I was going to make.
I think Bruce is also related to protecting your ego; if you invest everything you have in the game, and still lose, you’re inferior. But if you’re lazy or don’t take it too seriously, and get back luck… then you *could* have won, had you really wanted to.