It's not your money, is it? It's our money, if and only if we can settle on how to distribute it. But it's not your money. The only money that's yours is what is offered to you, if you so accept. |
|
|
|
What's wrong with taking advantage of a position of power so long as you are not harming someone? If you are playing poker and get AA, do you fold because you might be taking advantage of your position of power? Who said anything about it being wrong? I said there's a difference between that and charity. You do understand the difference, right? Why is him giving you anything beyond the first penny (or whatever significant amount of money to move you from neutral to taking action) any more than charity? It's not your money, is it? Put it another way. If I end up with a package of $100 on my door, I am happy. But some people, if they find out their neighbors got $1000, are no longer happy about it. |
|
|
|
|
You are forgetting the velocity of money component.
For example, I may spend $50,000 in a year. But I don't need to have $50,000 at any time to do this. Say I only trade with one other guy. I sell him potatoes and he sells me oranges. I sell him $1000 a week, he sells me $1000 a week. We only really need $2000 in this economy. But there might be $100,000 of economic activity in any year. This is because we trade 50 times the same money.
No one is going to sit on that much of their cash. They'll spend it and they'll earn it.
|
|
|
|
This game is similar to the Cold War nuclear standoff between the USA and the USSR. Let's say that country A detects that Country B has launched 500 nuclear missiles. Should Country A fire back? What's the point? Country A will still be completely destroyed. Launching a counterattack won't help the situation.
However, it is in each country's interest to make the other country think they will fire back in this situation, to deter the first strike. It is in each country's interest to appear irrational.
Firing back is neutral if anything, but it's a good example. Obviously real world examples are a bit flawed since even a nuclear attack would not destroy everything, some people would live, etc... Even so, firing back and killing a lot of innocent people just because they have asshole leaders is pretty disgusting. |
|
|
|
I find spite to be irrational. All human emotions are nonrational, not irrational. If I tried to spite you by burning my house down and leaving yours completely unharmed, that would be irrational. Anyways, the difference between outright charity and taking advantage of a position of power has been explained to you. I'm sorry if you can't/won't see it. What's wrong with taking advantage of a position of power so long as you are not harming someone? If you are playing poker and get AA, do you fold because you might be taking advantage of your position of power? |
|
|
|
I don't agree that rejecting the $10 deal can be characterized as an act of jealousy or envy. Let me illustrate with a few examples less loaded than the grandma heritage one.
Variant 1:
Imagine that the mysterious stranger came with the following proposal instead: "I have $5000 to give you two guys, and I will split it randomly. You don't get to further negotiate your shares, only take it or leave it. If both accept, you get your share. If either rejects, neither gets money." Seeing that your expected outcome is $2500 and you have nothing to lose, you both immediately accept. You get to confirm that the randomization method (die rolls, roulette, computer PRN generator, whatever) is fair.
So, you both cross your fingers and hope for the best. Unfortunately for you, the dice give $10 to you and $4990 to the other guy. Uncomfortably concealing his mix of joy and worry, the other guy accepts his $4990. What do you do?
Variant 2:
The mysterious stranger proposes: "I'm feeling generous and I'd like to give away $5,000. But honestly, I like you [smiles and taps the other guy in the shoulder] better, so have $4,990$. I hope you [looks at you as if counting the nanoseconds to take his eyes elsewhere] don't mind you get $10. You don't get to negotiate, just say yes or no, now. If either of you rejects the offer nobody gets a dollar."
What would you do?
V1- I take any offer. V2 - I take any offer. I'd guess some people reject the offer even though it hurts an innocent guy and benefits the guy who is "unfair". |
|
|
|
I love how everyone is adding new rules and justifications.
if it's a full moon and the other guy is under 30 and I'm wearing pants and it's a weekday and I can negotiate the price and Muslims bomb the royal wedding and China goes on the gold standard and David letterman retires and the money wasn't stolen and it would be used to open a soup kitchen for stray cats, I'll undoubtedly, probably, almost, conditionally take the money. Unless Bono clubs starving children in Africa for a benefit concert or Porsche builds a new car that isn't a 911 or I didn't have my 20 daily cups of coffee or the guy with the money falls under a bus and we have to have a knife fight to the death (which I never win on the first try anyway) or fukushima finally melts down properly, I mean shit or get off the pot already. how long will they keep propping those cores up like the US economy.
This isn't that complicated. The other guy is trying to buy $4990 for $10. that's just a bad deal.
You are trying to burn $4990 in someone else's wallet for $10. Who is making the bad deal again? |
|
|
|
I do not understand why we FORCE a fee period?
And why do we FORCE a minimum fee?
Because there is a real cost to the network for every transaction, and the code hasn't been fully optimized yet. Allowing users and miners to set fee policy without recompiling will happen, but I think there are higher priority issues to tackle first. If I understand correctly, someone could build their own mining app that DOES accept small payments without fees. And you could write your own client app that DOES send small transfers without fees, but there's no guarantee anyone will accept it. Is this accurate? |
|
|
|
accepting 5000/0 is not rational btw. why would you care more about the greedy unknown person taking all the money than the unknown person offering it? Formally, this assumes that first you try to maximize your own payoff, and that being equal, you try to maximize global utility. It can be argued that the "unknown person offering" the money has signaled a lower preference for keeping it than the "greedy unknown person" taking it. This is a minor point, though, and somewhat besides the question. Just got curious about whether the folks that would take one cent would go all the way to accepting nothing at all. It really depends where the money is coming from. If it's wealth that's just created (a $5000 car drops out of the sky) from thin air, it makes sense to create it (unless you sold used cars or something silly where you would personally be hurt). If it was transfered from one random person to another, and the person transferring it was voluntarily giving it up, then it doesn't matter either way which way you act. |
|
|
|
You can play all sort of mind games to make her believe that you won't take an "unfair" offer, but the formulation states that she'll offer you $10 nevertheless. Your option (or not) to communicate before she makes her call only matters as far as that would affect your decision.
I mean, would you accept more or less money if you had a chance to state your position first? If you swore you wouldn't take anything but half and she offered $10, would you be any more or less likely to accept it, in relation to the case where you didn't get a chance to talk before her offer?
If not, then all this talk about mind games is irrelevant to the question, isn't it?
It's irrelevant if you are dealing with robots or people who aren't spiteful. But some people would actually kick themselves in the nuts just to watch you get hit by a truck. People do it all the time. Just pay attention to politics. A huge segment of the population is motivated by spite, envy, and jealousy, and would make themselves suffer as long as people they consider undeserving suffer more. It's quite sick. |
|
|
|
If I never see the guy again, never play the game again (basically the problem postulated), I take any offer. But I absolutely don't let him know that ahead of time. Even if he gives me $0, I'll let him have all $5000. Unless that money came from a charity to feed orphans or something.
Good point. This game is designed so that the people discussing it will have a tendancy to lie about how they would really act: Potential players discussing the game are incentivized to provide the appearance that they would deny small values of money, but are incentivized to accept all values of money when they are actually in the situation. And you do whatever you can to convince him. Perhaps if he seems like he has a high sense of fairness. You could appeal saying "come on, we should split it half way, I'd do the same for you". If he seems weak or desperate, tell him you don't care that much, and burn a $100 bill in front of him to show him how much you don't care. It's all negotiating techniques and reading people at that point. I think the most believable situation without pissing off the person making the deal is to start out at 50-50. If you try to demand more, he may just spite you. If he mentions A Beautiful Mind or Nash, I start making him think I'm irrational. How the second guy reacts to the offer is the least interesting part to me. Either you are rational or spiteful. What the first guy offers, and what the second guy tries to get is much more interesting. |
|
|
|
Also, there's actually a way to win as the receiver if there is communication. If you can make a binding decision ahead of time, you could say "I will reject any offer less than $4990". If you can make such a binding decision you are effectively reversing the roles. You are now the one calling the quantity and the other guy is the one that only gets to accept or veto. From your perspective, you are not playing, and therefore not winning, the original game. In the problem as formulated, you cannot make such a binding decision. Now, imagine you could make a non-binding declaration of how much you will accept, and that the other guy offers you $10 nevertheless. Does that change your choice? If I never see the guy again, never play the game again (basically the problem postulated), I take any offer. But I absolutely don't let him know that ahead of time. Even if he gives me $0, I'll let him have all $5000. Unless that money came from a charity to feed orphans or something. |
|
|
|
Any definition of rationality that only takes into account monetary incentives is completely flawed. Money is a means to some further ends, something that will satisfy some other human desire. If you're poor and starving, I'd imagine you would take any amount because you value your next meal over any chance to exact vengeance. On the other hand, if you have everything in the world, what's $10 over the chance to share your views on cooperation/vengeance with someone that just seemingly slighted you? The psychological satisfaction that results would be worth more than another $10 in your pocket.
I find spite to be irrational. And I certainly wouldn't spend $10 to teach a lesson to some random stranger. Getting satisfaction out of harming others is for sociopaths. Without trying to be too morbid, if a psychopath murdered your entire family, then played this game with you, and offered you $1. You would accept it? In that case, vengeance is at least deserved. Someone not giving you something you have no claim to is not. |
|
|
|
Show me how it's irrational to reject an offer. Is it irrational to pay to go to Disney world? It causes a loss in financial standing to only satisfy some psychological need. What's the difference?
I'm saying getting enjoyment out of harming others is disgusting, not irrational. |
|
|
|
Any definition of rationality that only takes into account monetary incentives is completely flawed. Money is a means to some further ends, something that will satisfy some other human desire. If you're poor and starving, I'd imagine you would take any amount because you value your next meal over any chance to exact vengeance. On the other hand, if you have everything in the world, what's $10 over the chance to share your views on cooperation/vengeance with someone that just seemingly slighted you? The psychological satisfaction that results would be worth more than another $10 in your pocket.
I find spite to be irrational. And I certainly wouldn't spend $10 to teach a lesson to some random stranger. Getting satisfaction out of harming others is for sociopaths. |
|
|
|
How is it different? Because in one case there is a "rightful" owner, and the first case, the money appears to be "shared" at one point in time? Very precisely. You think that shouldn't matter? That is also why, in a subtle sense, db's framing makes the problem different. I have insisted you don't necessarily treat this as a game theoretical abstract problem where utility is perfectly encoded in the monetary payoff and your job is just to maximize that. That is, not unless that's how you honestly would frame it in real life. The purpose of the thought experiment is exactly to explore how real human emotions and perceptions, and how real social dynamics, transform a problem which otherwise (that is, in an abstract game theoretical formulation) would have a clear unambiguous solution, invariant from all the different framings that maintain the same monetary reward structure. That is, to explore the difference between rationality as formally defined in game theory and what makes sense to you in real life. Whether you choose to call the latter "rational" or not is a matter of definitional nuance and not the main point. Oh, I'm aware of human emotions being quite irrational (a lot of people would rather be the richest person in a very poor country than the poorest person in a very very very wealthy country, even if the poorest guy has a lot more stuff than the richest guy). Envy is a huge human emotion. I just find it to be a huge weakness and not a characteristic I admire at all. It's all about how people want to punish the person offering the deal. Why do they deserve punishment? What are they doing unfairly? What are you owed by them? Who are they harming by offering you a low offer? People hate when other people get something for free and they do not. Therefore they'd actually pay a fine to make sure no one else got free stuff. It's borderline sociopathic to me, but it's part of many peoples personality. If I was playing this game as the person making the offer, I would do my best to try to determine what is the lowest payout my opponent would take. Then I would try to figure out how certain I was at each level. If I was 99% sure he would take an even split, and 80% sure he'd take 3000-2000, I'd go with the even split. If I had to deal with this person again, I'd offer more than if I never saw him again. If I was certain he was rational and not spiteful, I'd offer him a penny. If I was receiving the bet, I would try to make sure the person negotiating thought I was as crazy as possible and that I was capable of spite. Hell, I'd even try to convince him I wouldn't even take half. I don't need the money that much, so it's not worth my trouble unless he gives me $4k. Then I'd accept any offer he throws my way. But I would definitely not let him know that while the game is being played. But the idea that someone wants to take away a huge sum of money from someone else just because they didn't give you enough seems almost mentally ill to me. Any amount over a trivial sum would be considered a gift and insurance that his opponent is not a fool. |
|
|
|
An interesting hypothetical to the spite-happy people.
My grandmother dies and leaves me $5000 inheritance. You are my next-door neighbor. You ask for some of the money. I say "sure, I'm feeling nice here's $10". Do you bash my $5000 car with a hammer because I didn't give you enough?
It's harder to think of a scenario that is less analogous to the game than this one. You're missing the point entirely. How is it different? Because in one case there is a "rightful" owner, and the first case, the money appears to be "shared" at one point in time? Well, I can't respond for anyone else. I can only give you my opinion and subjective values. And besides, this is somewhat of a red herring to the fact that rejecting an offer in the game is not irrational under any circumstances. Anyways, I personally would find that: 1. You have a legal claim to the entirety of the funds 2. You are not obligated to make any offer to me 3. You are not receiving the funds under the condition that I accept a one-time offer that you are obligated to make So no, I wouldn't personally smash your car. I would reject your $10 offer in the game. Fair enough, but the result is still the same in both cases. Do you feel like you were obligated to some amount out of the game? |
|
|
|
An interesting hypothetical to the spite-happy people.
My grandmother dies and leaves me $5000 inheritance. You are my next-door neighbor. You ask for some of the money. I say "sure, I'm feeling nice here's $10". Do you bash my $5000 car with a hammer because I didn't give you enough?
It's harder to think of a scenario that is less analogous to the game than this one. You're missing the point entirely. How is it different? Because in one case there is a "rightful" owner, and the first case, the money appears to be "shared" at one point in time? |
|
|
|
rationally, accepting the 10$ is the right choice in a totally isolated experiment. telling anyone that you would make a rational decision however, is not.
always appear like the 50/50 guy.
Here Eliezer Yudkowsky argues well that it can be a rational to actually be the 50/50 guy: http://lesswrong.com/lw/to/the_truly_iterated_prisoners_dilemma/This is not the prisoners dilemma, since the only reason to defect is spite. |
|
|
|
|
Also, there's actually a way to win as the receiver if there is communication. If you can make a binding decision ahead of time, you could say "I will reject any offer less than $4990". And if you violate that agreement, you are forced to donate twice the money you get to charity or something like that. If my opponent is certain I will live up to my word, he'd be a fool to offer me anything less (unless he is the jealous spiteful type who will bash my car because I got an inheritance). It's similar to playing chicken and removing your steering wheel and throwing it out the window and disconnecting the brakes. Your opponent knows that you cannot possibly stop, so he has to either swerve or die. You win every time your opponent does not disconnect his own brakes and steering wheel before you.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
