POLL: The Ultimatum Game

Remove all ads!

Remove the choice from it and it becomes a little more clear: Say you flip a coin and there is no split, one person gets 0 and the other gets 100. Anyone who plays this game will see it as "fair", but you throw in the fact that the winner can give something to the loser [a far better deal than the original game, as far as the loser is concerned], and suddenly the loser feels cheated if he doesn't get 50% cut? That is arrogance and spite and pride and greed at its worst. Not to mention, it conflicts with all logical accounts.

This question is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma, wherein two criminals decide whether or not to confess, based on four choices:

1: I confess, you don't, you spend 10 years in prison.
2: I confess, you confess, we spend 5 years in prison.
3: I don't confess, you confess, I spend 10 years in prison.
4: I don't confess, you don't confess, we spend 1 year in prison.

[say, they really don't have enough evidence to convict you, they just want to see if you'll confess]

The idea that a lot of people are saying, and you said your family practices, Lokken, is a philosophical sentiment first brought to realization by Rawls, only he applied it to life. He said basically, fairness should govern all things in life. Because it is only by "the natural lottery" that some people "win" [in terms of height, family wealth, etc] that there should be no discrimination because of these things. If we were in the Original Position [i.e. not born yet] and behind a Veil of Ignorance [we did not know whether we were white, jewish, athletic, male, female, etc.] that we would be opposed to any discrimination based on these attributes. He took a step further to say that there should be a redistribution to compensate those people who are not to blame for their not being fast runners or smart thinkers.

A fellow philosopher and contemporary, Nozick, rebutted with the infamous "Wilt Chamberlain" example. Say the great basketball player Wilt Chamberlain, gifted with enormous height and basketball ability, was to charge 25 cents more per game, just to see him play. [Like, you buy your ticket, and then pay an additional 25 cents that goes straight to Wilt] Now, no one is bending these peoples arms. If they want to see Wilt play, they have to pay another quarter. So say over the course of a few months, Wilt now has a disproportionate amount of money that he earned perfectly legitimately and perfectly "fairly" [he didn't coerce anyone]. Should Wilt be made to give those quarters back even though he earned them and people gave of them willingly? Does he not "deserve" to be tall and good at basketball, and thus not deserving of the rewards?

I see it there is no concept of "deserve" or not "deserve". If one person wins in the coin example, they shouldn't feel like they deserved any share. They lost. If they want to be spiteful, that reveals their nature: illogical, vengeful, and retributive. It is arrogance to feel cheated after you lose a game legitimately.

[ January 31, 2003, 03:59: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

 

But, based on the same logic, you have no reason to say the split is UN-acceptable. You are assuming that declining is the default. As you said, either way you are no better off. Both are equally viable options. The only thing that would tilt the scales in favor of UN- is spite. If you didn't like the way your partner handled the situation, you could "punish" them. If you feel this need, its called spite. It doesn't change your own position. By the same rationale I could "teach you a lesson" by rejecting a deal clearly in my favor. You should've reamed me, and because you didn't, I'll teach you this important lesson: DENIED!

If you get $1 then the choice is clear. If you get $0 then, based purely on logic, its a 50/50.

[ January 31, 2003, 04:59: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

 

I see now that we couldn't make our intentions known beforehand, but I still stand by my decision. I offer 50/50 and I expect the same, since, as BTA said, "You and a partner are offered $100 to be split between the two of you." A split. However, whoever wins gets to decide if they want to hold up to that or not.

I go in the toss with my mind set that I will split 50/50 should the choice be given to me. And I expect the same from my partner. I look at it like this. If my partner gets greedy and offers me anything less than 50/50 and I take it - then I have been bought out! That is dishonorable IMHO. It's like saying, "OK you broke the chance for us to do this the fair way, but you want me to overlook it and accept some money rather than no money. Why?"

He may not say why, but it would boil down to the fact that my greedy partner is waging on me accepting some money rather than no money just so he can get more. And I'm sorry, but I will not be bought out. It's 50/50 or nothing at all. That's only fair and honorable.

 

And what is so wrong with spite? It is one of the great motivators.

As reply to BTA's earlier statement and a connection to spite so am I willing to hurt myself if I was sure that my choice would hurt the other person more.
The prisoners dilemma isnt really the same thing as it is about punishment, not reward and that there are several different outcomes. To say nothing is the choice with most potential gain but also the most risky one while confessing always brings punishment it is always lower than if you say nothing and your accomplice speaks. Therefore both prisoners will confess as that is the most secure choice, man tends to always choose security over a risky potential.

 

Why does a position of neutrality lead one way or the other?

You're saying that if you get 0 dollars you would find it unacceptable? Why?

Case A:
You lose, your opponent says 100/0. You say no, that's unacceptable.

Your gain: 0. His gain: 0.

Case B:
You lose, your opponent says 100/0. You say ok, that's acceptable.

Your gain: STILL 0. His gain: 100

I'm not saying you have to care one way or the other whether or not he gets 100 bucks. In fact, that's exactly what I'm not saying. You don't care, either way you get nothing. So why is the default position that which says the split is unacceptable? Ignoring things like "spite", "fairness", and "honor", couldn't the default case just as easily be that the split is acceptable? Aren't you indifferent to what your opponent gets because you are only interested in your own gain and either way you get 0?

 

Interesting proposition. Personally, the Prisoner Dilemma is much more difficult to decide: while I would normally not confess, it would naturally depend on my partner.

I'd offer 30, basically just because I'm greedy and always hard up for money. On the other hand, I'd take whatever they give me. It's more than I had to start with. I also agree with Amon-Ra: I've got nothing against someone else's gain. Look at it this way, BTA: if you accept, you gain nothing, so you are where you started. If you decline, though, you have gained something -- the other person's enmity. Personally, I think of that as a negative gain, so I'd accept even if they gave me nothing. And if the partner was a friend, I'd be all the quicker to do so. My friend's gain is my own gain. And my gain is my friend's, so even were I to win and greedily take $70, it is undoubted that half of that $70 would be spent on my friends anyway. (which could have something to do with me being always hard up...)

 

50:50, but not out of a feeling of "if I don't get as much as the other person, s/he can bite me."
I see it as a "treat me as I'd treat you." Therefore, if I would offer half, the other person should offer half. Fair is fair.

 

You are self-interested, yes, but declining the offer of 0 dollars does not act to serve your self-interest. It does not act AGAINST it, but it does not act for it either. It is a neutral action.

Self-interest means you want to end up with the best possible deal. If the best possible deal for you is 1 dollar, 5 dollars, any # of $ greater than 0, then self-interest motivates you to accept, given the alternative. We agree on this.

However, if the best possible deal is 0 dollars, no matter what, what gives one route to 0 dollars more validity than the other? Basically, what makes declining 0 dollars more acceptable than taking 0 dollars? Nothing. They are equal. No logical favoring of either option.

Given that the consequences for declining 0 dollars render the same result as the alternative, self-interest is meaningless in this case. It helps neither side.

 

You're placing a value on your ability to make that decision that doesn't really exist except in the minds of the people involved. You have one thing, your decision, and you are wanting your partner to "buy" it from you.

You're also [if i'm not mistaken] confusing self-interested with greedy, or better yet, selfish. The two are very distinct. One can be "self-interested" and still give away something that, in giving away, does not harm nor benefit the person in question. Selfishness, however, would be to say that what you are giving away is worth some value [even though to you, it has no value except for what you can get for it by holding it over someone's head] and demanding entitlement at the expense of someone else.

Akin: A man owns 3 fish by virtue of luck, that is he invested no effort into achieving what he was given, but only came upon it by chance[like the right to decline or accept in the prior example]. However, he is allergic to fish and has no use for them so he decides he will throw them out [The power of choice has no self-effect and thus no value if the dollar amount offered is 0]. Another man approaches and says he loves fish, and would gladly put them to use [Your partner wants the $100, but is not willing to pay you for something that to you means nothing]. Should the first man suddenly take this opportunity to charge the other man for the fish? [Should the man decline] This is selfishness, which in turn furthers self-interested goals, if successful, but they are not the same idea. A self-interested, but non-selfish person would [ideally] be equally likely to give the fish away as to throw them away [though generally, due to the circumstances described, this would not be the case], because to him they still have the same 0 value they had initially, and where they end up is inconsequential as it does not further the self.

Having the power to decide only acts to cause a person to feel "entitled" to a cut of the $100, though in reality, his entitlement comes at the other end of a gun. You are essentially using the power of choice to coerce your partner, whether by actually saying it or just as a matter of thought he realizes the potential that you might decline if given an unfair share. Despite the fact that he won the power of split, you are placing limitations on his power to which you are not entitled. And, as a consequence, you run into two options: you get no money [through acceptance or decline], or you get money you don't deserve, but were offered so that you wouldn't decline in spite.

[ February 01, 2003, 09:46: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

 

I would want 50 but if i lose i would want anything she/he offers.Free stuff is sweeter than honey i think.

 

What your saying is that the other person has to appease you in order to get your acceptance? I suppose, though this has, to me, a connotation of using a stubborn position to strong-arm your partner into giving you a cut. Its like, "You'd better give me something, or else."

But I suppose you have every right to do so, as you have been awarded the right to choose. I just think it is selfishness more than self-interest that are the motives in play.

anyways, /concede

 

I voted 30; 1, but in hindsight I'd go more in the area of 20/25; 1.

If I were offered the one dollar I'd make a snide remark and pocket the dollar.

Well said.

[ February 03, 2003, 21:46: Message edited by: The Deviant Mage ]