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 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 134

Thread: Hypothetical: $100 Game

  1. #61
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    One other wrinkle that might be worth considering - the setting in which the decision takes place.

    I participated in studies like this all the time in undergrad in order to make some money, and the first time I ever had this scenario, my counterpart (who I never met) and I were seated at computers in different rooms. I suspect it was easier to play hardball (and to screw over the other party) when you weren't face to face.
    I agree that the setting definitely matters. As well as just the psychology of making someone angry face-to-face, if you actually get to see the other person you can make some assessments/stereotypes about them to gauge how they might react. For example, I think men are more likely to care about maximizing their profit, and women are more likely to care about fairness...so if I was Player A, I'd probably be more inclined to keep a greater percentage for myself if I saw that Player B was male. That may or may not be an accurate assessment...but it's probably how I would react.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 06-14-10 at 05:12 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #62
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    99 items of food > than 1 item of food > 0 items of food. Psychology does not have any bearing on that. Psychology would only come into play if the food was liked or not, thus altering the biological value by incorporating the psychological devaluation.

    99 bullets in the chest < 1 bullet in the chest < 0 bullets in the chest. Again, Psychology isn't a factor. Psychology would only be a factor if one was suicidal and wanted to reject biological imperatives.
    Admit it - you were playing Oregon Trail while you wrote this post.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #63
    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 roguenuke View Post
    But many people are not going to agree with your deal, so although you would get the most possible when someone does agree to your 100/0, you would need to consider the odds of someone actually agreeing to the proposal.

    For me, there is no way that I would agree to 100/0 split unless I really believed that you might need the money more than me. Without actually knowing the person personally, anything but a 50/50 split would be rewarding greed and unfairness, and I would disagree to it on principle. I think the more uneven the money ratio is, the more likely you are to not get anything. So if you consider statistics in this, you would be most likely to make the most money (especially if you played this game often enough from either side) by always offering, and only accepting a 50/50 split (if you had little idea of when the game would actually end).
    I don't get it, but I'd like to understand your reasoning better. So let's set it up to make sure we're clear: We are in a game. I win the first toss and get to choose how the money is split. So I choose $100 to me, $0 to you. You have two choices:

    To reject it: in which case- GAME OVER - you get $0

    To accept it: in which case I get $100, you get $0.00 -

    Either way you get $0.00. Why would you not allow me to have $100 at no additional cost to you? It's my choice to make if you get money and you're choice if I get money. But my choice of giving you money means I get less money. Your choice of giving me money means nothing to you since you're already getting nothing. I truly don't understand your response.

    Likewise, if I lost the first toss and was person B, I would expect you, Person A, to do what was best for you. If you did split it with me, I'd accept it and think you made an illogical choice. Because why wouldn't you expect me to give you the $100 at no cost to me? what would it matter to me at that point? Just because you could have done something differently? The fact is that the situation is now, do you get $100 or not. And why not? It's no cost to me.

  4. #64
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    You don't need to interact with them again for it to be rational, you just have to assume that neither of you exist in a vacuum. If they tell their friend, who in turn tells another friend, who observed the same phenomena from someone else who acted similarly "irrationally" then it makes the possibility of an "irrational" refusal an issue for Player A to consider. If none of the players B ever refuse the money out of spite, then it would be irrational for player A to plan for such. The only thing that makes it rational to assume that player B will behave "irrationally" is the fact that they are a member of a group that has a history of behaving "irrationally".

    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.
    But the fallacy here is assuming that if YOU reject the offer when you're Player B, that other Player B's everywhere will follow suit (and that this is inherently a good thing for you). If your goal is to make as much money as possible, as opposed to making the world a better place for Player B's in the game, the rational thing to do would be to accept whatever Player A offers you, as long as it's more than $0. But the logic does change a bit if it's a repeating game rather than a one-shot.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #65
    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
    I don't get it, but I'd like to understand your reasoning better. So let's set it up to make sure we're clear: We are in a game. I win the first toss and get to choose how the money is split. So I choose $100 to me, $0 to you. You have two choices:

    To reject it: in which case- GAME OVER - you get $0

    To accept it: in which case I get $100, you get $0.00 -

    Either way you get $0.00. Why would you not allow me to have $100 at no additional cost to you? It's my choice to make if you get money and you're choice if I get money. But my choice of giving you money means I get less money. Your choice of giving me money means nothing to you since you're already getting nothing. I truly don't understand your response.

    Likewise, if I lost the first toss and was person B, I would expect you, Person A, to do what was best for you. If you did split it with me, I'd accept it and think you made an illogical choice. Because why wouldn't you expect me to give you the $100 at no cost to me? what would it matter to me at that point? Just because you could have done something differently? The fact is that the situation is now, do you get $100 or not. And why not? It's no cost to me.
    The expectation of fair play is a part of human instinct. Watch how 5 yearolds play at some point. They will come up with some pretty elaborate rules to ensure fairness (or their take on fairness)

  6. #66
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Hypothetical: $100 Game

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    I don't get it, but I'd like to understand your reasoning better. So let's set it up to make sure we're clear: We are in a game. I win the first toss and get to choose how the money is split. So I choose $100 to me, $0 to you. You have two choices:

    To reject it: in which case- GAME OVER - you get $0

    To accept it: in which case I get $100, you get $0.00 -

    Either way you get $0.00. Why would you not allow me to have $100 at no additional cost to you? It's my choice to make if you get money and you're choice if I get money. But my choice of giving you money means I get less money. Your choice of giving me money means nothing to you since you're already getting nothing. I truly don't understand your response.

    Likewise, if I lost the first toss and was person B, I would expect you, Person A, to do what was best for you. If you did split it with me, I'd accept it and think you made an illogical choice. Because why wouldn't you expect me to give you the $100 at no cost to me? what would it matter to me at that point? Just because you could have done something differently? The fact is that the situation is now, do you get $100 or not. And why not? It's no cost to me.
    If we assume that each player wants to maximize their own payout and I'm Player B, then I'm completely indifferent between a $100/$0 split and a $0/$0 split. However, since I know that you COULD have potentially chosen to share the money with me but you chose not to, I'm probably more inclined to screw you over.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #67
    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 Kandahar View Post
    If we assume that each player wants to maximize their own payout and I'm Player B, then I'm completely indifferent between a $100/$0 split and a $0/$0 split. However, since I know that you COULD have potentially chosen to share the money with me but you chose not to, I'm probably more inclined to screw you over.
    I understand that's your inclination. I just don't understand why.

    I think I had an epiphany and just deleted everything I just wrote. LOL. Let me start over:

    So I believe that you feel that we are both entitled to the money. And so by my choosing the 100/0 option, you feel like I took something of yours because I could have made another decision and so you seek revenge on me for taking an asset to which you were entitled.

    So the difference in our beliefs is this: I believe that the winner of the first coin toss has the only entitlement privelages. i.e. person A. They get to choose who gets the money and so the money is already their's IMO. They are entitled to it. I feel the coin toss was a determination of the privelage of entitlement. You feel it is just a formality and that regardless of who wins the first toss, entitlement is shared, but merely distributed by person A

  8. #68
    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
    I understand that's your inclination. I just don't understand why.

    I think I had an epiphany and just deleted everything I just wrote. LOL. Let me start over:

    So I believe that you feel that we are both entitled to the money. And so by my choosing the 100/0 option, you feel like I took something of yours because I could have made another decision and so you seek revenge on me for taking an asset to which you were entitled.

    So the difference in our beliefs is this: I believe that the winner of the first coin toss has the only entitlement privelages. i.e. person A. They get to choose who gets the money and so the money is already their's IMO. They are entitled to it. I feel the coin toss was a determination of the privelage of entitlement. You feel it is just a formality and that regardless of who wins the first toss, entitlement is shared, but merely distributed by person A
    The ability to veto gives the other person some level of control over the decision making process and they feel that because they have some level of input and ownership over it, they have entitlement. Personally, I see both sides of the argument and think both are rational. But I don't believe logic or rationality will always lead to the same conclusion and there can be multiple correct takes on the same situation.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 06-14-10 at 05:37 PM.

  9. #69
    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
    The expectation of fair play is a part of human instinct. Watch how 5 yearolds play at some point. They will come up with some pretty elaborate rules to ensure fairness (or their take on fairness)
    The expectation is fairplay, absolutely. But what in my example is unfair? I won the coin toss, I get to choose. Those are the rules. It's fair for you to decline the deal, but irrational.

  10. #70
    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
    The expectation is fairplay, absolutely. But what in my example is unfair? I won the coin toss, I get to choose. Those are the rules. It's fair for you to decline the deal, but irrational.
    I guess we need to go back to that other thread and discuss fairness again.

    Also, we should know by now that people are not rational beings. At least, I don't think they are.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 06-14-10 at 05:42 PM.

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •