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 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 134

Thread: Hypothetical: $100 Game

  1. #101
    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
    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)
    I am glad that you are consistent with your belief system. However, I also think my preferred way of doing things is the most honest. Its weird how that we both can feel that way, but we do. Of course, who says that a reasoned situation will only lead to one answer. Math problems can often have multiple answers or even an infinite number, all with equal validity. I suspect that both our answers are the most honest for that same reason.

  2. #102
    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
    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.
    To answer your question - why would I reward them? Because I understand their priority is to maximize their earnings in the game and will not fault them for that. I understand the emotion involved, especially if you had expectations of receiving anything. But in a game for $100, if I lost that initial coin toss I wouldn't be expecting anything. So I think the difference is in our expectations and therefore our emotions and then our responses.


    But the real reason I'm writing to you is because I like your signature. very cool.

  3. #103
    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 fredmertz View Post
    Are you incapable of making a point without such crude language? really?
    I use the language I find appropriate for the point I'm making.

    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 don't think you actually understand my belief at all.

    I don't care about the money, I care about the mentality that tries to maximize personal profit and expects others to cater to their greed. I think for society to function, such a mentality should be punished in such a way as to induce a more socially acceptable alteration in their behavior.

    Since that person's driving force is their greed, the most effective punishment is to strike at their greed by removing any chance for financial benefit from their greed.

    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.
    If person B is a "good person" they will punish person A for being greedy and selfish. If they are not interested in the betterment of society, they'll reward person A for being greedy.

    Just because you want to overlook the rational and logical benefit of having punished somoene for selfish behavior doesn't negate the existence of that benefit.

    In Person A's case, by giving Person B money, he takes away money from himself.
    False. He's only working with potential money until Person B makes their decision. By making an unselfish offer, he actually has the chance of gaining money. By not making an unselfish offer, assuming Person B is a good person who understands the sociatal benifits of punsihing selfish and greedy behavior, he has actually squandered his chance for having actual money due to his greedy selfish behavior.

    In Person B's case, he gives up nothing to give to person A.
    In person B's case, he actually damages sopciety for rewarding selfish behavior.

    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.
    Person B holds no obligation to Person A. Person A has no obligation to Person B. They both hav e an obligation to society though. If Perosn A decides to shirk those responsibilites by being greedy and selfish, person B is still obligated to punish that behavior for the good of society.


    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 was offering my opinion of selfish and greedy people. I firmly believe they deserve some from of punsihment aimed at behavior modification for the good of society. Society requires people to act in non-greedy, unselfish ways at times. This would be such a time.

    The flaw with your reasoning is that you are assuming that the money is Person A's to begin with simply because they make the initial choice. That's illogical and irrational. The money is not theirs until Person B accepts their offer.

    The only thing Person A actually has is the chance to behave in either an antisocial or social fashion.

    Person B has the chance to pass judgement on whether person As behaivor was antisocial or social, and then has the opportunity to reward or punish Person A for their behavioral choice.

    If person A chooses an anti-social approach, Person B is morally obligated to punish person B for their anti-social choice. If person A makes the social choice, then Person B is morally obligated to reward them for their decision.

    While you may not be aware of it, this is why people seem to agree that they would reject a 100/0 split or an "unfair" split if they were person B. They might say they are just doing so to screw PErson A for being a douche, but the truth is they are acting out a subconscious drive to punish anti-social behavior for the good of the pack.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 06-15-10 at 03:46 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #104
    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
    To answer your question - why would I reward them? Because I understand their priority is to maximize their earnings in the game and will not fault them for that. I understand the emotion involved, especially if you had expectations of receiving anything. But in a game for $100, if I lost that initial coin toss I wouldn't be expecting anything. So I think the difference is in our expectations and therefore our emotions and then our responses.
    But the coin toss doesn't say who gets what money. The coin toss says *I* decide. The coin toss designates one person the ability make an offer and the other person to refuse.

    Do I understand that person A would want to maximize their profit? Sure. That is within his "right" as the game is defined. And it is within my "right" to see him as a twat and tell him no.

    But the real reason I'm writing to you is because I like your signature. very cool.
    Thank you!

  5. #105
    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
    I use the language I find appropriate for the point I'm making.



    I don't think you actually understand my belief at all.

    I don't care about the money, I care about the mentality that tries to maximize personal profit and expects others to catrer to their greed. I think for society to function, such a mentality should be punished in ushc a way as to induce a more socially acceptable alteration in their behavior.

    Since that person's driving force is their greed, the most effective ppunishment is to strike at their greed by removing any chance for financial benefit from their greed.



    If person B is a "good person" they will punish person A for being greedy and selfish. If they are an idiot, they'll reward person A for being greedy.

    Just because you want to overlook the rational and logical benefit of having punished somoene for selfish behavior doesn't negate the existence of that benefit.



    False. He's only working with potential money until Person B makes their decision. By making an unselfish offer, he actually has the chance of gaining money. By not making an unselfish offer, assuming Person B is a good person who understands the sociatal benifits of punsihing selfish and greedy behavior, he has actually squandered his chance for having actual money due to his greedy selfish behavior.



    In person B's case, he actually damages sopciety for rewarding selfish behavior.



    Person B holds no obligation to Person A. Person A has no obligation to Person B. They both hav e an obligation to society though. If Perosn A decides to shirk those responsibilites by being greedy and selfish, person B is still obligated to punish that behavior for the good of society.




    I was offering my opinion of selfish and greedy people. I firmly believe they deserve some from of punsihment aimed at behavior modification for the good of society. Society requires people to act in non-greedy, unselfish ways at times. This would be such a time.

    The flaw with your reasoning is that you are assuming that the money is Person A's to begin with simply because they make the initial choice. That's illogical and irrational. The money is not theirs until Person B accepts their offer.

    The only thing Person A actually has is the chance to behave in either an antisocial or social fashion.

    Person B has the chance to pass judgement on whether person As behaivor was antisocial or social, and then has the opportunity to reward or punish Person A for their behavioral choice.

    If person A chooses an anti-social approach, Person B is morally obligated to punish person B for their anti-social choice. If person A makes the social choice, then Person B is morally obligated to reward them for their decision.

    While you may not be aware of it, this is why people seem to agree that they would reject a 100/0 split or an "unfair" split if they were person B. They might say they are just doing so to screw PErson A for being a douche, but the truth is they are acting out a subconscious drive to punish anti-social behavior for the good of the pack.

    You are right - I didn't understand. Though I do understand now. I don't agree, but I understand. I misinterpretted what you were saying and thought you were trying to seek vengence. This doesn't make sense to me because it will give you nothing - often times vengence, if it is the sole motive, will only leave you feeling worse, which would be counter-productive in every aspect. But if you were doing it for the good of a higher social order that you wished to maintain, then you have motives that will have a benefit to your belief. Though I disagree with the premise of the social order you are trying to support, at least I understand your reasons.

  6. #106
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    While you may not be aware of it, this is why people seem to agree that they would reject a 100/0 split or an "unfair" split if they were person B. They might say they are just doing so to screw PErson A for being a douche, but the truth is they are acting out a subconscious drive to punish anti-social behavior for the good of the pack.
    Thank you Tucker. Those were the words I was skating around in my posts because they were on the tip of my tongue. At the heart of the human is a social animal. We have evolved to function socially and instinctually feel that sharing is necessary. This is ingrained in our culture and always will be. This is one of the reasons I view natural law to be invalid because it imagines man in an unnatural state, that of being alone, and derives its principals from there.

    As I said before, watch young kids play, they will act out their instincts in a very visible manner. Also, note to be happy, one largely has to follow their instincts or find a way to successfully rationalize them. If you want society to function well, the majority of people going to need to be happy or else we will have instability.

  7. #107
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    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.
    If your goal is to maximize profit, and you know that so many people have said that they wouldn't give A the money on a $100/$0 split, then by offering the $100/$0 split, you are failing to maximize your profit. Profit will be maximized at the point at which your average probable gain is greatest.

    If 1 out of 10 people would take the $100/$0 split, then you add 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+100 and divide the sum by 10 to get $10.

    On the other hand, if 10 out of 10 people would take the $50/$50 split, then your average probable gain is $50.

    In this case, the $50/$50 split is clearly a better way to maximize profit.

  8. #108
    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 Panache View Post
    If your goal is to maximize profit, and you know that so many people have said that they wouldn't give A the money on a $100/$0 split, then by offering the $100/$0 split, you are failing to maximize your profit. Profit will be maximized at the point at which your average probable gain is greatest.

    If 1 out of 10 people would take the $100/$0 split, then you add 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+100 and divide the sum by 10 to get $10.

    On the other hand, if 10 out of 10 people would take the $50/$50 split, then your average probable gain is $50.

    In this case, the $50/$50 split is clearly a better way to maximize profit.
    Your logic is under the assumption that I believe 'so many people wouldn't give A the money' - but as I said - I don't believe it. So I would attempt to maximize profit with a $100/0 proposition.

  9. #109
    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
    Your logic is under the assumption that I believe 'so many people wouldn't give A the money' - but as I said - I don't believe it. So I would attempt to maximize profit with a $100/0 proposition.
    What is the basis for you not to believe what we're telling you? I have no motivation whatsoever do accept the 100/0 offer. None. In fact, I *only* have motivation NOT to accept it.

  10. #110
    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
    What is the basis for you not to believe what we're telling you? I have no motivation whatsoever do accept the 100/0 offer. None. In fact, I *only* have motivation NOT to accept it.
    Have you read the convo's between Mega, Tucker and myself? It's all explained there. It comes down to the fact that I think people should expect people to be greedy and that isn't immoral of those who choose to be greedy. That society is happier not sacrificing for the 'good of the pack' and instead, taking what they can, as this is natural to them IMO,under the rules that they don't cheat, lie, murder, etc. They (and I assume you) believe that as a member of society, if you see a way to distribute wealth without having to give any present value up, you should for the good of the pack and if you don't, then you should be punished. It's just a difference in what we call ideal societies.

    I beliieve that most members of society do (or should) expect person A to take as much as he can - to maximize profit. And so with that expectation, a member of society as person B should allow person A his profit since he didn't break any rules of the society (that I promote) of cheating, lying, murdering, etc. He earned it via the rules of the game and I as person B will allow it.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •