Game Theory

[huamulan]

You might enjoy thinking about this one (whether or not you have come across it before):

You are at the final stage of a competition. At this stage there is you, one other contestant and a big bag of money.

Both you and the other contestant have to state, in secret, whether you wish to 'steal' or 'share' the money. If you both say 'share' then you each get half of the money. If one person says 'share' and the other says 'steal' then the individual who said 'steal' keeps all the money. If you both say 'steal' then neither of you gets anything.

You and the other contestant are allowed to discuss the answers you plan on giving. After you have been split up and have given your respective answers you will never see each other again.

What do you say? And what is your reasoning?

I'm assuming that responses to this poll are anonymous, so there will be no repercussions if you try to betray your fellow forum-goers

[TA1LGUNN3R]

It depends on how well I know my fellow competitor.

-TG

[/]

I am generally honest, but untrusting, my deal would be this, I don't trust the opponent to not steal from me, but I know they want the money too, I will honestly tell them I will unconditionally steal, however I will whisper to them a secret drop off location; one half of the money will be there on my honor, it is their choice, either they can trust me to fulfill my bargain on my terms, or they can ensure by their own hand that they suffer with me.

Unless I am totally not allowed to share unless I say "share"?

[Army of GOD]

depends on how much I can trust the other person. Unless I know the person personally, I wouldn't trust them at all, which kind of sucks becuase I'd expect them to say steal regardless of what I tell them before we give our answers.

So, I'd say share. If I expected them to say steal, then whatever, I'll let them have the money because there's nothing I can do to change their mind. If they win all the money, then maybe I can sweetalk them/threaten them into giving me some.

[rdsrds2120]

Game theory? Or basic stats? Muahahaha.

Let's make a table of all possible options, assuming that the money is valued X:

Him | Me | My Profit
Share | Share = 50% of X
Share | Steal = 100% of X
Steal | Share = 0% of X
Steal | Steal = 0% of X

I'm bad at psych, so I'm not going to factor that in.

If I choose Share, I assume that there's a 50/50 chance of him choosing either Share or Steal, resulting in either a 50% or 0% gain for me, a mean gain of 25% of X

If I choose Steal, I assume again that there's a 50/50 chance of him choosing either Share or Steal, resulting in either a 100% or 0% gain for me, a mean gain of 50% of X

Therefore, I'd choose Steal if it were simply a numbers game.

Note, another example of this is the Prisoner's Dilemma

I pass the Baton onto Rodion to keep this convo going. BRING 'EM IN!

-rd

[maxfaraday]

Steal.

Just do the maths.

[nietzsche]

Steal, but I'd go with analyzing the other guy's face.

[Army of GOD]

Steal.

Just do the maths.

The "maths [sic]" only work for an unbiased system and this is definitely biased. As I said before, unless I know the person personally, I EXPECT them to steal in which case we'd both lose out if I stole too. I might as well go share and at least let that lucky douche walk out with the money.

Then I'll find him in the parking lot and beat him up until he gives me half.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Steal.

Just do the maths.

The "maths [sic]" only work for an unbiased system and this is definitely biased. As I said before, unless I know the person personally, I EXPECT them to steal in which case we'd both lose out if I stole too. I might as well go share and at least let that lucky douche walk out with the money.

Then I'll find him in the parking lot and beat him up until he gives me half.

See, I would expect that most would play it safe and share, which is why I'd probably steal.

-TG

[Army of GOD]

Steal.

Just do the maths.

The "maths [sic]" only work for an unbiased system and this is definitely biased. As I said before, unless I know the person personally, I EXPECT them to steal in which case we'd both lose out if I stole too. I might as well go share and at least let that lucky douche walk out with the money.

Then I'll find him in the parking lot and beat him up until he gives me half.

See, I would expect that most would play it safe and share, which is why I'd probably steal.

-TG

Well it depends on the conversation I have with them and how well I know them. If we both come to a mutual agreement to share, I wouldn't steal. I wouldn't want to be a dick because I wouldn't want someone else to be a dick to me (the golden fucking rule). But because I feel like most people are dicks, instead of both of us losing out I'd rather at least the other person get the money.

[huamulan]

Finding them afterwards is not an option, so whatever you walk away from the competition with is your final winnings. And you have never met this person before.

Would it influence your decision if I tell you that the bag of money contains $30,000,000?

[Doc_Brown]

If the opponent chooses share, I get 50% if I share and 100% if I steal: Advantage is to steal. If the opponent chooses steal, I get nothing regardless of my choice. Dominant strategy is to steal.

[thegreekdog]

If we're ignoring morality - Since I am allowed to speak with the competitor, I will try to get him to agree to say share, and then I will say steal.

If we're not ignoring morality, I'll try to convince the competitor to say share and then say share.

[Army of GOD]

Finding them afterwards is not an option, so whatever you walk away from the competition with is your final winnings. And you have never met this person before.

Would it influence your decision if I tell you that the bag of money contains $30,000,000?

That would make me more likely to share. I feel like at a certain point, the value of the money is negligibly large. If we were fighting for 100 dollars, then fine, I'll steal. 30 million? I'll share. I'd be plenty happy with 15 mil.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd share since we get to talk to each other. Chances are much better to cooperate--even with a minute or so of conversation before the game.


@rds, this is the prisoner's dilemma, just worded differently.

[Army of GOD]

I'd share since we get to talk to each other. Chances are much better to cooperate--even with a minute or so of conversation before the game.


@rds, this is the prisoner's dilemma, just worded differently.

According to the link rds posted about the prisoner's dilemma, if both people "steal", then they still "win" something by getting out of jail earlier than if one shared and one stole. The obvious logic there is to steal no matter what because you only serve three months max. That's like saying in this game, each player wins a sixth of the money if they both steal, which is significantly different.

[spurgistan]

I'd share since we get to talk to each other. Chances are much better to cooperate--even with a minute or so of conversation before the game.


@rds, this is the prisoner's dilemma, just worded differently.

It's the prisoner's dilemma, but with a Disney ending.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd share since we get to talk to each other. Chances are much better to cooperate--even with a minute or so of conversation before the game.


@rds, this is the prisoner's dilemma, just worded differently.

According to the link rds posted about the prisoner's dilemma, if both people "steal", then they still "win" something by getting out of jail earlier than if one shared and one stole.

If they both defect, (i.e. steal or confess), then they each get the highest punishment. If one defects, and the other cooperates, then
The obvious logic there is to steal no matter what because you only serve three months max. That's like saying in this game, each player wins a sixth of the money if they both steal, which is significantly different.

huh, yeah you're right. I remembered incorrectly. I thought that if they both defect, they each incur the highest loss.




http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/

[Gillipig]

Steal of course.
There's no advantage in sharing. Sahring doesn't make you more likely to end up with money. The only thing it does is prevent you from winning the large sum of money.

[Mr_Adams]

I'd say steal. if the other person says share, then I win. If the other person says steal, I lose either way. So, I may as well make them lose if they are going to make me lose. And if I'm not being vindictive, I win.

[rdsrds2120]

I'd share since we get to talk to each other. Chances are much better to cooperate--even with a minute or so of conversation before the game.


@rds, this is the prisoner's dilemma, just worded differently.

I know, which is why I said it was another example of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

-rd

[Lootifer]

There is no spoon.

[thegreekdog]

Inb4

This is the Prisoner's dilemma.

[huamulan]

That would make me more likely to share. I feel like at a certain point, the value of the money is negligibly large. If we were fighting for 100 dollars, then fine, I'll steal. 30 million? I'll share. I'd be plenty happy with 15 mil.

Sure, you'd be happy to share, but who says that your competitor will be? If you convince him that you're going to say 'share' then he knows he can rip you off.

Judging by the votes cast so far, half of the people in this thread are going to be taken advantage of by the other half.

[Lootifer]

Id share.

Yes its the lesser rational option.

Id still share knowing that its irrational.

Why?

Because if you cloned my decision and rolled it out all accross humanity then you get everyone being moderately happy, compared to somewhere between 0% and 50% being very happy and somewhere between 50% and 100% being unhappy.

This is indirectly a collective cultural decision and for all collective decisions you should not be looking at the individual metric but the collective (inb4 BBS: dont worry, I already understand that in many cases the pursuit of the individual benefit leads to the greatest collective benefit; but in this specific example it does not).

Think about it: repeat this dilimma for the population of the world, two people at a time. Say you have two scenarios: Complete individual freedom vs Some authority telling you that you must vote "share".

Complete freedom metrics: (unhappy = 0, happy = 1, very happy =2)
Average population happiness: Less than or equal to 1 (it can never be greater than 1 and is likely to be less depending on the population)
Lower quartile happiness: Likely to be 0 depending on population

Enforced share metrics: (unhappy = 0, happy = 1, very happy =2)
Average population happiness: 1
Lower quartile happiness: 1