The RP Problem: Loss Aversion, and the Erosion of Human Error

Many of the gamechanging events in human history relied on mistakes. Had the Allies enforced the Treaty of Versailles with more strictness, perhaps the Third Reich would’ve never ascended to the stage it had. If the Imperial Japanese Empire never let several of its carriers be ambushed and destroyed, perhaps the war in the pacific would’ve been much more favorable for the Japanese. If Hans Ferdinand didn’t think it wouldn’t be a good idea to parade in a country that resented the Austrians, then the course of history might’ve been altered in ways we cannot comprehend. The point of these examples is to show that yes, good choices are instrumental in history, but so are the mistakes. For every Revolutionary War, there is a Great Depression. For every Red October, there is a Great Purge.
I’ve found, writing this, that “if” is a term I have used a lot so far. “If” is a weird word. It often relays that a mistake was made in the past. We find “if” used many times in the OOC RP discussion. However, we almost never find the word “if” in italics. At least, not used to reference a error our beloved countries made from a mistake. Because our countries, frankly, ignore the possibility of human error.
When the enemy marches forward with hundreds of blitzkrieg ready combat tanks, some people would run as fast as they could for fear of death. When a person faces the threat of torture for months, they are more likely to give in than withhold information. When a nuclear weapon destroys the cities of the country, it is more probable that the populace would have an uprising to end this conflict if the government won’t. But this is predictably not the case in the RP. The populace are robots, programmed to agree with everything the government does. Prisoners suddenly have an iron will when facing the threat of torture. Soldiers hold their ground against overwhelming odds. Always. Never does someone give in. At least, not when dealing with the person’s main country. I’ve found that NPCs are often much more reasonable. That, however, is not the purpose of this essay, and it will be left to your interpretation on why that is.
This can be attributed to Loss Aversion. It is a fancy psychological term that explains why the human condition refuses defeat. Defeat, loss, call it what you will, has a significantly higher rating in the minds of the individual than success. This is considered to be, because ancient humans needed to be aware that going hunting in the snow and possibly catching a prize animal for eating would not be favorable, because of the risk. Risk is important to consider why there is an absence of human error in the RP. If the player does concede information through interrogation, how will that affect them in the long run? If the player does retreat out of fear, will that lead to a loss? If the player’s populace does revolt, how will that affect other country’s views of them?
If you haven’t had the gears turning in your head yet, this is how the human psyche works. People won’t admit human error willingly, because they might lose. And no one wants to lose. This leads to unrealistic scenarios, where everyone is a drone with a will of iron.
How can this be resolved? I don’t know. I’m not sure if this can be resolved. I can say however, that if everyone can acknowledge that this human trait exists, we can begin to work towards an RP environment where everyone is more concerned with being realistic and fair, and less concerned with winning.