$100 to me, $0 to player B
$99 to me, $1 to player B
$90 to me, $10 to player B
$80 to me, $20 to player B
$70 to me, $30 to player B
$60 to me, $40 to player B
$50 to me, $50 to player B
$40 to me, $60 to player B
$30 to me, $70 to player B
$20 or less to me, $80 or more to player B
You can and should state your case why you think one value system is better than another, but you are doing yourself a disservice in pretending that people are something that they are not. The majority would be uncomfortable in a strictly justice based system (with no mercy or empathy) and they have a legitimate reason for feeling that way due the fact it is in their very make-up.
person : game theory problems :: frictionless surface : physics problems
When I asked my sister what she would do in this game, she told me she would only accept the 100/0 split if person A was her husband, because then she'd get it anyway. Despite the fact that it would be pointless to have the game played with two related people, I thought it was a funny answer.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
In fact, I think the fact that they help others to help themselves is a huge factor as to how good a person is - moreso than if it was just their nature - because they are CHOOSING to do so. If helping someone else makes you feel that good about yourself (or if not helping them would make you feel that bad about yourself) that you help them with no other reward than the good feeling or lack of bad feeling, then I'd say you have a huge concern with supporting your moral integrity and you are an awesome person. If it's simply what you do because it's in your nature, you're good person sure, but you had no choice but to be a good person. My conclusion would say that you have a strong conscience and I'd like you. So no - I'm not doing myself a disservice. And I'm not 'pretending'. I'm sharing my belief. You're allowed to disagree and I welcome that. But please don't accuse me of pretending. That's just insulting.
The last point I would like to make is a point that I have made before: This game is for $100. The two key parts to that point is 1) it is a game in which I am just trying to max out with no cost to myself. 2) It is $100. It is not a life changing amount. If it were $10myn, then I would absolutely split the money in some way. probably a 50/50. Though again, I think I could get away with more, but I would want to do that person a favor. Because my life would change w/ $5myn and I would be very happy to be able to help someone else change their life with $5myn at no cost to me. But $50 certainly won't change their life. If it were a different game, I would have a different answer. My answer is based on $100 and it's hard to believe people would be so emotional over $100. And my life wouldn't change knowing I could have had $50 but blew it going for $100. If person B rejected my 100/0 offer, I would be confused because it simply doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. I would think that they wouldn't expect anything other than a 100/0. Again, this is my opinion based on my belief system - not pretending and I think it is more pure for the reasons I stated above. I like that we can disagree and I hope we can get back to that being ok with you.
Taken as a hypothetical, 50/50 is the only rational answer. Especially since the "value" of anything less than 50 is distorted by the inflationary aspects of the 'other' receiving anything more that 50. This inflationary/deflationary effect is magnified the closer we get to 100/0 of course. It wouldn't be a linear progression. Especially since the point of this exercise is to make poor desperate people feel good (feel 'rational') about getting screwed by the wealthy. If the 'poor' realize they will retain their position (starting and ending with zero), while the 'wealthy' have everything to lose (starting with 100 and maybe ending with 0), the 'poor' become the party who are negotiating from strength. Person B can bring the whole system down and be no worse off. Person A can chose between losing everything and losing half. Under this model, it would be just as solid to argue that person B should not accept unless offered 99 - as it would to say they should accept 1. The ONLY economically rational offer is 50/50.
Last edited by PeterAthans; 08-04-11 at 04:15 PM. Reason: wrong choice of words: changed mathematically to economically
For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship