$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
Last edited by Kandahar; 06-14-10 at 03:12 AM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
To me, anyone who thinks than an economy, could be completely mathematically efficient, would be crazy.
Thinking in terms of the personal value of non physical things, like emotions, I believe people to generally be rational in their actions.
I've came to the conclusion, that perfection in an economy is the imperfections of people.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
Given that the "irrational" behavior of the group has led to a much higher gain compared to a group that always behaved "rationally," the "irrational" behavior seems to only be irrational in the short term, but more rational in the long term.
I think the point he's making Panache that, in regards to the game and the information provided, you are essentially in a vacuum
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
I don't know much about economics but I'd go for the most profitable amount (to me) least likely to get a rejection from Player B whereby we'd both lose.
If I was player A, I'd offer 51/49. (it wasn't an option so I picked 50/50 in the poll)
If I was player B, I'd reject any off that was not 50/50 or better for me (even if the person offered what I would offer).
I don't really care about the sum of money involved, so it's all about winning the game. Winning the game for player A is getting player B to accept any offer that benefits Player A more. A 50/50 split is a "loss" for player A. A rejection is a loss for Player A.
Winning the game for Player B is getting at least $50 or rejecting it. Accepting less than $50 is a loss for Player B.
So the offer I would give as Player A would be the offer that has the greatest chance of earning me a "win" as Player A.
The only offers I'd accept as player B would be one's where I "win" or else I will exercise my option to snatch the win away from Player A.
If the sum being divided were something substantial, the threshold for me to accept a "loss" in the game would be when the amount of money I could win was large enough that I was willing to lose the game. Let's say that it was $10,000 being divided instead of 100.
I'd gladly accept a 9,000/1,000 split because the "consolation" prize is enough to make losing worth it. If I were player A in such a scenario, I would size up Player B in order to determine what I should offer. If they look like they wouldn't care too much about $1,000, I'd offer a more fair split. If they look like a normal person, I'd offer 9,000/1,000.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
I think the poll, although its just 11 people, but I could say 78% to sound more convincing, shows a trend towards a social norm of fairness. That is, its not right to take advantage of someone in a poor or powerless situation, such as under pure logic being forced to accept a single dollar while you take 99.
The 50/50 splits is equal and leaves the deciding party without a sense of guilt or shame in having taken advantage of a situation where they were placed as the decider purely by chance, and I believe there's an underlying agreement that people expect from one another for fairness. Also consider that not feeling the sense of guilt may be more valuable to the decider than an extra 49 bucks. Thats the problem I see with a lot of economic theory, it ignores things it can't quantify, like "feelings," or even worse actually tries to quantify them.
I would offer 50/50 split because the potential animosity created were I to be greedier outweighs the difference between 50 dollars and whatever other amount I might suggest.
"you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos
I'd say 50/50 cause that's how I roll. Unless I thought Player B really needed the money much more than me, in which case I'd say 1/99
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.