A seemingly bizarre concept came to me - A Truth or Truth Contest

[DeMont]

Good evening dear colleagues,
In looking through some of the concept headings here I was struck by a bizarre notion. Would it be possible to hold a truth or truth contest?

In concept the theory follows that the author would be constrained to write in the 1st person point of view only. The story would then be read as seen and experienced by themselves. The ideas, concepts and activities would be solely as experienced by the author. The content, in reality, would have to be beyond question and we would have to rely upon the honesty of the author completely. In other words a "suspension of disbelief".

Thus, the tale would not be about the acts, the extremes, or lack thereof, rather in the author's skill in making the events both believable and sincere.
It would therefore rely on the skill/s of the author alone.

Could this be done? I wonder.
Respectfully,
D.

 

[yano2mch]

Hmmm...

The content, in reality, would have to be beyond question and we would have to rely upon the honesty of the author completely. In other words a "suspension of disbelief".

Thus, the tale would not be about the acts, the extremes, or lack thereof, rather in the author's skill in making the events both believable and sincere.

Truthfully it would come down to psychology. A lot of people through peer pressure will do things they normally never would, just to be going 'with the group'.

One experiment where they took a room full of people who were all told when asked which line was longer, it wasn't even close it was a clear distinction where they'd choose the shorter one, and often enough the person will go along with it.

Same thing for a experiment where right/wrong answers they were instructed to press a button to give an electric shock when they had a wrong answer and the shock would get increasingly worse, stronger and more lethal (they'd hear them screaming in the next room, but no real shock was given). The observer was only allowed to say 'you have to keep going'. And quite often they would. The old excuse from WW2 of 'I was just following orders'

Real world today, with microtransactions in phone games, if they can coax you to make that first purchase, get that 10,000 gems for $5 (being 60% off, from the usual $10-$12) then following purchases are far more likely. The sunken cost fallacy where once you've invested or put some energy or time or money into something, you'll put more because otherwise it will feel a waste. (yes this usually is for gambling, but fits for whale free-to-play games)


In short, positions of authority, or going along with the group seem a bit more likely. Far more likely if the person would have wanted to anyways but needed an excuse. Truth or Dare and Twister are ice-breaker games, to get things to start for couple pair offs or the like. So you can probably go pretty far in the suspension of disbelief.