View Poll Results: What is your proposal?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • $100 to me, $0 to player B

    4 7.02%
  • $99 to me, $1 to player B

    3 5.26%
  • $90 to me, $10 to player B

    1 1.75%
  • $80 to me, $20 to player B

    1 1.75%
  • $70 to me, $30 to player B

    2 3.51%
  • $60 to me, $40 to player B

    7 12.28%
  • $50 to me, $50 to player B

    36 63.16%
  • $40 to me, $60 to player B

    3 5.26%
  • $30 to me, $70 to player B

    0 0%
  • $20 or less to me, $80 or more to player B

    0 0%
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 134

Thread: Hypothetical: $100 Game

  1. #91
    Educator Alastor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Reality
    Last Seen
    06-08-14 @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    645

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Perhaps this has already been covered and I missed it (though I did look):

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    If we are dealing in pure economics, then $99 to me and $1 to player B is the correct answer: both people turn out ahead and I, having the control would want to maximize my take. However, if we bring human psychology into it, it would depend on the personalities of the players. Probably a $50/$50 split would work most often.
    The problem here is that Player A doesn't actually have any more or less control than Player B.

    Player A has the right to offer a proposal, but player B has the right to reject it.

    The controls are different, but are pretty much balanced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Traditional "efficient market" economics will tell you to split it $99/$1 in your favor...but in practice that doesn't work because people are NOT rational actors, and are more than willing to waste their own money in order to screw you over. If I'm not allowed to know anything about the other person ahead of time, such as their nationality/culture/gender, then I would probably split it about $50/$50. But if I know that the experimenter is pulling other people from, say, the United States, then I'm much more likely to split it about $65/$35 in my favor.
    Sure they're rational. "Rationality" does not mean "devoid of understanding of human nature."

    "Logic" means "devoid of emotion."

    Rationality takes into account human nature and realistic (though perhaps emotional) consequences.


    The only significant advantage I can think of is that Player A gets to make the proposals at a time and place of his choosing, initiating any possibilities. Player B doesn't get that control.

    What could change the situation is if they have to be sitting together at an agreed upon time and duration for any proposal to be made as well as to be rejected or affirmed. Or, if they had a time limit.

    If Person B were allowed to wait on announcing his decision, that too would nullify any advantage Player A has.


    If I'm not making my point, try this example (or ignore it if you get my meaning):

    Player A could sit there for five minutes silently, knowing what his next proposal would be and when he would offer it. Psychologically, this gives Player A the edge as he is the instigator and Player B can only respond when Player A relinquishes control.

    This would be an edge simply because it might cause player B more stress or test his patience more.

    On the other hand, Player B could wait for A to make a proposal and then do the same thing back; refuse to answer until a time and place of his choosing, knowing what his answer will be and when it will come, and that Player A can't make another proposal until this one is accepted or declined.

    If there's a time limit on the negotiations, then that completely negates any power either of them have to control each other, emotionally or otherwise.

    Likewise if the negotiations can be ongoing over a long period, but both must schedule and agree to the times for negotiations, there is no advantage for either side.

    The only edge Player A gets is one of perception, and only at first. Shortly after that the same advantage is given to Player B - although if Player B doesn't realize he has that advantage it can be lost - but then again the same is true of Player A.




    The actual good sense economic model here is to maximize efficiency, make the most profit possible, and to do a cost/benefit analysis.

    The real and accurate answer would be to maximize profit as quickly as possible and get on to other things. If this deal can be made in 10 seconds, then it's very profitable indeed. If it takes an hour, the profitability is greatly reduced for all parties. If it takes more than an hour, it probably actually cost the Players something to be there and they both lose.

    The best answer from an intelligent economist would be to offer the 50-50 split right out the gate, to maximize profit in the shortest period of time, reducing the cost of a cost/benefit calculation - thus amplifying the benefit.



    A fast, neat, efficient, 50-50 deal is actually what is in the best interest of both parties, and not by "just a little bit."

  2. #92
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    If I lost the coin toss and my 'opponent' offered 100/0, I would say no out of sheer spite to punish him/her for being a twat. UNLESS, I really thought they needed the money much more than I did. But even then, I'd consider saying no out of spite because needing the money isn't a reason to be a twat. LOL

  3. #93
    Educator Alastor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Reality
    Last Seen
    06-08-14 @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    645

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    If I lost the coin toss and my 'opponent' offered 100/0, I would say no out of sheer spite to punish him/her for being a twat. UNLESS, I really thought they needed the money much more than I did. But even then, I'd consider saying no out of spite because needing the money isn't a reason to be a twat. LOL
    And while this would be an emotional response, it's not irrational. It's what most of us would expect as a likely outcome - so to take it into account is actually far more rational than dismissing it.

    Which is why anyone with the sense God gave a goose simply offers the fair deal from the get-go.

    "Logic" is a different word from "rational." There's a reason for that; they mean different things.

  4. #94
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    And while this would be an emotional response, it's not irrational. It's what most of us would expect as a likely outcome - so to take it into account is actually far more rational than dismissing it.

    Which is why anyone with the sense God gave a goose simply offers the fair deal from the get-go.

    "Logic" is a different word from "rational." There's a reason for that; they mean different things.
    It's perfectly logical as well, if one believes in the premise that punishment for twattery is a necessary aspect of a functional society.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #95
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The situation I was describing in that post was in a vacuum.



    Outside of a vacuum, helping the douchebag who was unwilling to help you is stupid. I think person A choosing to be greedy and selfish makes person A scum. Person B should only feel like scum if they were to accept the offer and actually assist this selfish POS is his greedy, scumbaggery.

    That's the awesome thing about taking it out of a vacuum. The impetus for moral decision making is actually on Person A, not Person B.

    Person A has the option to be a douche or not. Person B does not have that option. Person B only has the option to punish person A for their douchery (by rejecting the offer) or reward them for their non-douchery (by accepting it).

    If Person A chooses anything but a near 50/50 split, person A is being a douche and deserves some for of punishment for their douchery. PErson B then has a moral obligation to sacrifice any potential earnings in order to punish Person A for their Douchery.
    Are you incapable of making a point without such crude language? really?

    Anyway - I understand your belief. You believe the money should be split. I believe that any person not doing what is best for them is a fool. That doesn't mean not to split the money if that's what's best. It means trying to maximize utility. If it makes them feel good to split it, then so be it, that' s a consideration. But if their goal is to maximize profit, then I say go 100/0. But so many people say they wouldn't give A the money in that case. But I don't believe it.

    I believe that a person in B's situation should be willing to look at the two scenario's if offered 100/0 - either I get nothing and A gets nothing OR I get nothing and A gets $100. They end up the same either way. They don't 'balance' anything. The game is to maximize your profit. Person A is trying to do just that. Person B has no say in how much profit they get. So why wouldn't they respect person A's game of maximizing the profit? I have a feeling that person B would be a good person and give person A the money understanding his intent to maximize.

    In Person A's case, by giving Person B money, he takes away money from himself. In Person B's case, he gives up nothing to give to person A. If anything, I would think Person B would be more immoral for not giving the money at the cost of nothing than person A not giving money due to the cost of money.

    And simply calling person A names and saying bad things about him for not agreeing with you in a situation other than 50/50 split isn't a sound argument.

  6. #96
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    If I lost the coin toss and my 'opponent' offered 100/0, I would say no out of sheer spite to punish him/her for being a twat. UNLESS, I really thought they needed the money much more than I did. But even then, I'd consider saying no out of spite because needing the money isn't a reason to be a twat. LOL
    In order to give you money, Person A has to give up his own potential money. He has a valid reason for not giving you money in a 100/0 example. To maximize his profit.

    Your reason is 'sheer spite to punish him'. I don't understand why people wouldn't understand Person A's desire to maximize profit. If I were person B, I would be sad that I get no money, but not surprised. That's the way the world works. And I would definately, without hesitation, give Person A the deal. He won the coint toss and did what was best for him - can't blame him for that IMO.

  7. #97
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    Are you incapable of making a point without such crude language? really?

    Anyway - I understand your belief. You believe the money should be split. I believe that any person not doing what is best for them is a fool. That doesn't mean not to split the money if that's what's best. It means trying to maximize utility. If it makes them feel good to split it, then so be it, that' s a consideration. But if their goal is to maximize profit, then I say go 100/0. But so many people say they wouldn't give A the money in that case. But I don't believe it.

    I believe that a person in B's situation should be willing to look at the two scenario's if offered 100/0 - either I get nothing and A gets nothing OR I get nothing and A gets $100. They end up the same either way. They don't 'balance' anything. The game is to maximize your profit. Person A is trying to do just that. Person B has no say in how much profit they get. So why wouldn't they respect person A's game of maximizing the profit? I have a feeling that person B would be a good person and give person A the money understanding his intent to maximize.

    In Person A's case, by giving Person B money, he takes away money from himself. In Person B's case, he gives up nothing to give to person A. If anything, I would think Person B would be more immoral for not giving the money at the cost of nothing than person A not giving money due to the cost of money.

    And simply calling person A names and saying bad things about him for not agreeing with you in a situation other than 50/50 split isn't a sound argument.
    I think you just made Tucker's case for him though. There is a certain expected social order of sharing. The logic of that order, is that, if followed, people will be more giving and society will function more smoothly as a result. Also, as a part of the logic of that order, enforcement must happen through punishment on a one to one basis. Basically, if you do not adhere to this social order than the other person is right to punish you as a result. I personally believe this social function is a matter of instinct and is a major reason that the preferred libertarian social order would not work. People are not wholly self maximizers nor are they wholly sharers.

    You obviously do not agree with this, or at least I do not think you agree based on your previous posts. However, for such a social order to remain functional, it must be utilized in these sorts of situations. Given that, I see Tucker's response as perfectly logical because it enforces a better (in my opinion) society.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 06-15-10 at 03:27 PM.

  8. #98
    Educator Alastor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Reality
    Last Seen
    06-08-14 @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    645

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    Your reason is 'sheer spite to punish him'. I don't understand why people wouldn't understand Person A's desire to maximize profit. If I were person B, I would be sad that I get no money, but not surprised. That's the way the world works. And I would definately, without hesitation, give Person A the deal. He won the coint toss and did what was best for him - can't blame him for that IMO.
    Then I want to play games with you.

    For money.

    Lots of it.

    The coin toss was not agreed upon to determine the split of the money or the winner of the money. It was simply to determine the roles each would have.

    If you would honestly take that deal... You're my new best friend.

  9. #99
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    In order to give you money, Person A has to give up his own potential money. He has a valid reason for not giving you money in a 100/0 example. To maximize his profit.

    Your reason is 'sheer spite to punish him'. I don't understand why people wouldn't understand Person A's desire to maximize profit. If I were person B, I would be sad that I get no money, but not surprised. That's the way the world works. And I would definately, without hesitation, give Person A the deal. He won the coint toss and did what was best for him - can't blame him for that IMO.
    Here's the difference between you and me: I can and WILL blame person A for being a twat. Why would I want to reward someone for that? I wouldn't. So, no money for them. They find it ok to make sure I don't get any money, I find it okay to do the same to them in return. After all, the results of the coin-toss say that I have that power. I am the one who decides. And when faced with punishing or rewarding a jerk, I'm going to go with punishing them.

  10. #100
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    I think you just made Tucker's case for him though. There is a certain expected social order of sharing. The logic of that order, is that, if followed, people will be more giving and society will function more smoothly as a result. Also, as a part of the logic of that order, enforcement must happen through punishment on a one to one basis. Basically, if you do not adhere to this social order than the other person is right to punish you as a result. I personally believe this social function is a matter of instinct and is a major reason that the preferred libertarian social order would not work. People are not wholly self maximizers nor are they wholly sharers.

    You obviously do not agree with this, or at least I do not think you agree based on your previous posts. However, for such a social order to remain functional, it must be utilized in these sorts of situations. Given that, I see Tucker's response as perfectly logical because it enforces a better (in my opinion) society.
    Ahhh- now I feel like I am reading your argument for the first time. It makes sense to me and thank you for sticking with me. You're 100% correct that I disagree with the social order you suggest. And that my social order would be more honest and better, but that is just my opinion. Truly, I believe we should do what is best for ourselves always. I also believe that means doing good deeds for others when appropriate and the cost to ourselves isn't greater than the benefit to ourselves (but I digress ). But in a game over $100, my concern is only for myself. It's a game and I'm in it to win it. If it we a life-changing amount, I would certainly change my answer to a degree. And I would do this so that I could feel good about myself. But for $100, I'd take the risk as person A and as person B, I'd respect person A for making that choice (though no matter what the amount, if I were person B I wouldn't punish person A - he maximized what was important to him even if that wouldn't have been my choice in a role reversal)

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •