Hypothetical: $100 Game

megaprogman said:

Yes. I am sure you are a moral person. However, you are missing the point. I have pointed out an aspect of human nature and explained why it is important. If you really look around, you will see that its importance is self evident as it has a very real and strong power to shape our society. You may disagree whether this aspect of human nature is a good thing, but barring some genetic change, its not going to go away. Ultimately, people are not solely self-maximizers because if they were, we would not even have this conversation because it would be obvious to both of us. We do not discuss the proper number of arms and legs for example.

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.

Click to expand...

I cannot 'state my case' any better than you can. We both see the same evidence. And we have used the evidence to support our claims. morals do have a very real and strong power to shape our society. I am not arguing that. It is in human nature to understand morals and want to be a moral person. I understand that. They question I answer differently is WHY? I believe it reduces to self maximization. You believe it is what it is and is no more complicated than that. Regardless, the end result is nearly the same - people will be moral - will do good deeds - will help their neighbor.

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.

CaptainCourtesy said:

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.

Click to expand...

I just read about this recently, but can't remember what the outcome was. I know where I read it, but ill see how it goes here before I check.

Wiseone said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've read about this experiment and culture is a major factor. People from a culture with strong rules about gifts actually reject an even split in favor of one where they get LESS than half, iirc.

Anarcho-fascist said:

person : game theory problems :: frictionless surface : physics problems

Click to expand...

Imagine a spherical cow in a vacuum...

I'm not particularly interested in screwing over someone else, nor am I desperately in need of any amount of money between 1 and 100 dollars. I would either split it 50/50, being completely fair, or give the whole thing to the other person if they really needed it. Or if I wanted them to owe me a favor... If I were person B, I would probably throw away 30 bucks in anger over someone else trying to screw me to get 70.

But I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't sneeze at $40 to keep me from getting $60.

That could backfire on me, but remember, I won the coin toss.

Mickey Shane said:

But I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't sneeze at $40 to keep me from getting $60.

That could backfire on me, but remember, I won the coin toss.

Click to expand...

I probably would. My sense of fairness says that you should offer me at least half. If you are not willing to do so, then I find little reason to let you benefit with any money. Maybe next time such a situation comes up, you will choose to do what most people would consider fair.

The amount of money in question here really does make a difference though. If it were a higher amount, then it would change the game, since $40 is an insignificant amount to most Americans. If you are talking about $400 or $4000 or higher amounts though, then it would come down to economic need vs the need to try to teach a lesson in fairness. At higher amounts, especially in this economy, most Americans would have to consider their own finances.

Of course, honestly this could be considered a game of chance and be subject to tax laws, so it is also possible that at $600, you could be subject to taxes (depends on how the IRS would look at the situation) while I wouldn't at getting only $400. Plus, in significantly higher amounts, taxes on the money could cause a person to jump up in their respective tax brackets, which could lead an economically savvy person to go for a smaller piece of the pie in order to avoid a higher tax bracket if it is an issue.

Mickey Shane said:

But I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't sneeze at $40 to keep me from getting $60.

Click to expand...

I would reject it without even blinking. The money's too low of an amount for me to allow someone to be a greedy dick.

Hell, if I didn't like the person making the offer for whatever reason, I'd reject any offer that didn't give me $99 just to be a dickhead myself.