**** him, The Good Reverend keeps it all.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
I don't think the poll question is legitimate in that it has no relationship to actual reality or the real political or ethical principle.
Even if I intended to give all of it to charity, why would I give anything to that guy?
If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.
I'm sticking with 50% because it satisfies the unknown. Whether I, or the other person, was either rich or poor we would both be satisfied.
When the gift is the music, it comes from a heart that sings.
We've got plenty, more would be just for show. I'll give him all then he can deal with the 'strings' attached.
First, I wouldn't touch the money if it didn't come from a clean source, I really don't need the money.
Second, I wouldn't be able to keep all the money even if I wanted to nor could the other guy even if I gave it all to him, unless he is Uncle Sam already...
Last edited by barbarian_style; 02-20-12 at 05:35 PM.
Interestingly, in all experiments involving this game, most of the participants in the dictator role end up alotting money to the other person instead of keeping it all.
It shows that humans have an altruistic core, even with others they don't know. While theorists offer explanations for why the dictator would not maximize their own alottment, it may also partially disprove the economic theory that all humans are purely self-interested actors. I wanted to see if the results would be similar with people at DP and they were. The overwhelming majority would give some portion of the money away instead of keeping it all - and more would give half than in any other category. The fact that people know practically nothing about the receiver does not change the outcome.Originally Posted by Wikipedia: The Dictator Game
Thanks everyone for participating.