The discomfort with the notion of simulation amongst game aficionados and detractors alike (and, I would add, writing teachers) can, I think, be traced to a series of contradictions inherent in the usage of the word itself. At a fundamental level, “simulate” means at one and the same time to be like, and to be unlike. Let me spend a moment teasing apart a rather complicated set of linguistic relationships between several terms: simulate, dissimulate, assimilate and dissimilate.

Simulate
Simulation’s Latin origins appear innocuous enough: from simulare (to copy), which itself comes from similis (like). In its origins, then, the word evokes the reproduction of an original artifact or experience, a relationship through a recognition of shared qualities. But within simulare you don’t have to listen very hard to hear the Platonic suspicion of the copy. Here is a partial list of some of the more common synonyms for simulate: duplicate, copy, clone, imitate, mirror, recreate, redo, reduplicate, recreate, replicate, reprint, reproduce. The Western philosophical tradition has, of course, long defined the act of reproduction, of copying, as a secondary activity: unoriginal and inauthentic. But there is more at stake here. Despite the fact that simulation is supposed to be confined to the secondary activity of reproduction, the word carries with it the threat that it will move beyond the bounds of mere reproduction and actually begin to partake of the privileged activity of invention. This then gives us the other definition of “simulate:” to feign, to conceal, to be what you are not (this is in fact the first meaning given by the OED).

Simulation
The definition of simulation is itself heavily constrained by the normative force of a representational tradition. The first two definitions given in the OED all define simulation according to the ability to imitate the visual appearance of something. It is only when we get to the third definition that the possibility of defining simulation according to behavioral imitation appears. Here, however, the secondary nature of simulation is preserved, because the role of simulation in training and practice is highlighted: simulation as rehearsal. However the central tension in the term “simulate” is now clear: simulation involves the fake and the inauthentic, but it has to be sufficiently like the original, sufficiently authentic, to pass and, potentially, to be able to convince someone that it is that which it is not. If, furthermore, we extend the notion of simulation to incorporate behavior, its function must in fact go considerably beyond rehearsal: it must in some sense be the event for which it is training someone, since the purpose of the training is to allow someone to respond automatically in the event they encounter the “real” situation.

Dissimulate
This brings us to the word “dissimulate,” a word whose sole purpose is to describe feigning and dissembling. Here I freely confess that my training is not in linguistics. What interests me, however, is why we have a second word to describe a state that is already inherent in another word, and one that shares a similar Latin origin. The OED notes that appearances of “dissimulate” in English are rare before the end of the eighteenth century. My hypothesis is that we have “dissimulation” because at some point it became necessary to distinguish different aspects of imitative behavior based on their perceived intent. Both simulation and dissimulation produce a passable copy of an original; the intent of simulation, supposedly, is to produce a “true” copy of an original; the intent of dissimulation, on the other hand, is to hide an original.

Dissimilate
If we simply wanted to define the opposite of the simple act of copying (of making a likeness), there is a word for that although we don’t use it very often: dissimilate. However, while dissimilate actually means the opposite of “simulate”in this respect, it is constructed as the opposite of a very different term, although one with the same Latin roots: assimilate.

Assimilate
There is a subterranean, as it were, linkage between simulation and assimilation. The definition of assimilation, however, clarifies what is seen as potentially threatening about simulation. It participates in the general suspicion directed towards activities that are in many ways seen as derivative or secondary. But it also evokes the more disturbing feeling of something that is a replica: something that isn’t just “like” the original, but is so indistinguishable from the original as to be the original for all practical purposes. However, the simulation is not simply capable of passing itself off as an original; inasmuch as it has the ability to imitate not just appearance but behavior, it carries with it the threat of forcibly incorporating us, absorbing us into the substance of the simulation.

b. To have the external features of, to present a strong resemblance to (something).

c. Zool. = MIMIC

d. To imitate the conditions or behaviour of (a situation or process) by means of a model, esp. for the purpose of study or of training; spec. to produce a computer model of (a process).

OED: Dissimulate
1. trans. To pretend not to see, leave unnoticed, pass over, neglect. Obs. rare.

2. To conceal or disguise under a feigned appearance; to dissemble.

b. intr. To practise dissimulation, to dissemble.

OED: Assimilate

I. To make or be like.
1. a. trans. To make like to, cause to resemble.

II. To absorb and incorporate.

8. a. intr. To become of the same substance; to become absorbed or incorporated into the system.

New Missions

The Bastard Stepchild
Socrates the Game Designer