EPTKwark, 200 CAD, plus shipping please.
EVE Corporation - Page 1896
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
Kwark, 200 CAD, plus shipping please. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4173 Posts
On October 13 2014 00:18 KwarK wrote: The $100 is given to A on the condition they make the split and that B accepts it. A doesn't yet have the $100, instead the situation is that A and B need to work together to collectively earn $100. If anything B's labour is more valuable, they control if the money is paid out. In that scenario if A tries to overvalue himself and undervalue B then it creates resentment which in turn creates spite value. If the spite value is worth more to B than the split then the split is entirely logical. Either way though, the perspective by which A already has it all, B already has none and any offer is reasonable is misreading it. Neither of them have anything, both of them have potentially up to $100 if they work together, A offering B $5 is no more reasonable than B holding out for $95, neither of them have any claim to any of it alone. It also doesn't take into account the value of that money for an individual. If A was a millionaire and B was a homeless person who could buy himself a good meal for 5 bucks, then B gets more utility out of that kind of offer than A gets out of keeping the rest..... Same goes for the reverse, the millionaire B could hold out without really caring about losing out, while the homeless A has an incentive to ensure that he gets at least some of it. Ultimately, it's the person who has the least interest in the reward that ends up being able to ensure they get most of it..... | ||
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41984 Posts
| ||
|
JJoNeEightY
United States509 Posts
Also, I would totally take the five dollars. You can gain a little, or you can gain nothing. Expecting concepts like 'fairness' to actually be things that play roles in the workings of the world is going to leave you pretty disappointed. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
On October 13 2014 04:57 JJoNeEightY wrote: Don't pay 180 ACTUAL REAL NON CANADIAN DOLLARS for a 760! Body Shield pls. Also, I would totally take the five dollars. You can gain a little, or you can gain nothing. Expecting concepts like 'fairness' to actually be things that play roles in the workings of the world is going to leave you pretty disappointed. http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130932&cm_re=GTX_760-_-14-130-932-_-Product | ||
|
Vipsanius
Netherlands708 Posts
Throw in some difficult assumptions, and you can literally keep publishing about this for the rest of your life (and people do). | ||
|
KwarK
United States41984 Posts
It goes "A, you get $100.... if you cannot agree you don't get anything". These are mutually exclusive but the entire premise of the exercise depends upon the second part being true which means that we can disregard the first. The problem is more accurately phrased "A, I have $100 that I wish to give away to both you and B. If you can gain the consent of B for a split then I will split the money accordingly but if you cannot then I will give no money away to either of you". The whole "B should accept any offer" is based upon a misreading of the scenario which is probably intentional. | ||
|
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
C says to A, "Here is $100. You must devise, on your own, a fair split of this money between you and B. You will propose this split exactly once. If B says no, I take the $100 back." C says to B, "I have given A $100 on a probationary basis. He has been given the opportunity to split this money with you once. If you are satisfied with what you're getting, you can say yes and each get the share A proposed. If you are not satisfied, you can say no and neither of you gets anything." | ||
|
JJoNeEightY
United States509 Posts
On October 13 2014 05:46 Body_Shield wrote: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130932&cm_re=GTX_760-_-14-130-932-_-Product This isn't a good value with the release of the 9 series and impending AMD price drops, and you know it, dog. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
On October 13 2014 06:38 JJoNeEightY wrote: This isn't a good value with the release of the 9 series and impending AMD price drops, and you know it, dog. Bitch please, current pricing is correct until it's changed, but besides the retard logic I am using here, kwark has no money | ||
|
KwarK
United States41984 Posts
On October 13 2014 06:13 Antoine wrote: that's actually not how the issue is proposed, kwark, you're the one misreading. C says to A, "Here is $100. You must devise, on your own, a fair split of this money between you and B. You will propose this split exactly once. If B says no, I take the $100 back." C says to B, "I have given A $100 on a probationary basis. He has been given the opportunity to split this money with you once. If you are satisfied with what you're getting, you can say yes and each get the share A proposed. If you are not satisfied, you can say no and neither of you gets anything." Giving someone something and saying that they can't keep it unless they succeed in a task is no different from not giving someone something and saying you'll pay them for doing a task. If the money in your wallet will disappear unless certain conditions are met then you do not have the money. That is not how it works. The phrase "give money" suggests that control over the money passes from person C to person A. In this case person A has absolutely no control over the money and won't until a later point at which person C decides to allow it. | ||
|
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21362 Posts
On October 13 2014 07:38 Antoine wrote: Right, but the way you're stating the problem is as though A and B have equal power, as in a normal bargain. In this situation, it's 1 proposition: A has the power to choose the split, B has the choice to say yes or no once, if that single interaction fails, nobody gets anything. B is the only one with power in the scenario. He alone decides if anyone gets any money at all. | ||
|
Mandini
United States1717 Posts
On October 13 2014 02:25 Body_Shield wrote: Mandini, how and what is the chair Kwark, 200 CAD, plus shipping please. http://www.needforseatusa.com/computer_gaming_chair_team_liquid_pro I like it. Its not a squishy comfortable though. It was firmer than I thought it would be but it is still good to sit in. Also the blue went well with the room so I got the TL one. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41984 Posts
On October 13 2014 07:38 Antoine wrote: Right, but the way you're stating the problem is as though A and B have equal power, as in a normal bargain. In this situation, it's 1 proposition: A has the power to choose the split, B has the choice to say yes or no once, if that single interaction fails, nobody gets anything. C has all the money. B chooses whether C gives away the money or keeps it. A is basically everyone's bitch and the only reason this isn't abundantly obvious is because the question suggests that A somehow has the money, even though A has no control over the money and can have it taken away without his consent. A thorough reading of the scenario will dispel the notion that A has any power which only exists because the phrasing is intentionally misleading. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
| ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On October 13 2014 08:11 KwarK wrote: C has all the money. B chooses whether C gives away the money or keeps it. A is basically everyone's bitch and the only reason this isn't abundantly obvious is because the question suggests that A somehow has the money, even though A has no control over the money and can have it taken away without his consent. A thorough reading of the scenario will dispel the notion that A has any power. A dictates the form of B's choice. This is the power that you are missing in your reading of the scenario. B chooses whether "any money" changes hands, but the amount of "any money" is left up to A. Two things are true: - In no real world test of this scenario would A ever walk away with less than half the money. - In most real world tests, A will walk away with more than half the money. This result alone should inform you that A has most of the power, let alone any power. I am going to go a bit afield here. In any negotiating setting, a true "take it or leave it" deal is a powerful thing. When a car dealer says "this is the price of the car, take it or leave it," the reason there is no power behind the statement is that it is easy to "leave it." That is, it is easy to go to another dealer willing to offer a better price. But if the dealer were the only car dealer in the world, things would be quite different. Intuitively, you can see that a dealer with a monopoly on cars, able to credibly say "take it or leave it," would be in a position of great power. We can imagine that the car dealer in this new scenario is A and you are B. For simplification, imagine that the dealer only sells one type of car but negotiates each sale based on how much it believes each customer would be willing to pay. If the car is offered at a price below the utility of what you would get out of a car, both you and the dealer will benefit from the purchase. In other words, the role of C is created by normal market forces. The dealer can offer the car at a price very close to what you would get out of it. After the offer is made (and the dealership says "this offer is final, take it or leave it"), your choice is easy. You buy the car, since it benefits you more than what you paid for it. Maybe you skipped most of the above paragraph. Here's the critical part: during negotiations, you might have said to the dealer, "It's ridiculous that you have this much power. I hate the fact that you have a monopoly. You think you can push me around, but you can't. If you don't offer a price at or below $x, I'm simply going to walk away." This appears to be an exercise of the power that you believe B has. But B's statements are not credible. A has the ability to set a price above $x regardless of what B says. Once A sets that price, B is still in a situation where he or she must make a choice: benefit, or spite A and not benefit. Once you move this scenario out of the laboratory and into the real world, it's easy to see that A holds all or nearly all of the power. | ||
|
DiracMonopole
United States1555 Posts
Like most of these scenarios, it is much more interesting when you consider multiple rounds. | ||
|
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
A gets to make the proposal, but ignore him at first. B has a choice, either accept and get something or reject it and get nothing. The only way that rejecting the offer makes sense is if B gets utility from denying utility to A. It's not a repeated game, so there is no signalling which can be used to gain better subsequent offers (which, I agree, is a far more interesting game theory exercise). So, gaining any utility from making someone angry is not logical and should be a minimal consideration. So, literally B's only power is deciding whether they get something or get nothing. To bring it back to Eve, it's like ganking an empty freighter. I think those people are wasting their time and are idiots; they are the people who would reject the offer. It is only these people that make this an interesting question at all. Without the vengeful idiots, it's incredibly straightforward. A should be able to offer 99/1 because 1 is more than zero for B. Only emotion ruins the simple utility calculation. | ||
| ||
