|
|
On October 13 2014 10:24 DiracMonopole wrote:
The issue I see is that if A knows B wont accept a bad offer, then it becomes reasonable to offer B $99, since $1 is $1 more than nothing.
Like most of these scenarios, it is much more interesting when you consider multiple rounds.
The issue is that B "not accepting a bad offer" is not a credible threat in traditional game theory (and a one-time game). B can say he won't, but once he receives the offer of $1, accepting it is better than rejecting and getting nothing.
|
United States43607 Posts
Spite in the face of unfairness isn't illogical.
|
I'm going to have to agree with KwarK here, the offer has to be greater than the spite value.
Personally I wouldn't think twice about throwing $5 away to spite someone who I feel has wronged me, $25 feels more reasonable but it really depends on how B values the money vs spite.
|
Only a turbo jew wouldn't take free money.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 13 2014 11:48 KwarK wrote:
Spite in the face of unfairness isn't illogical.
Of course it is. Getting $1 is better than not getting $1. By rejecting a 99/1 offer, you are saying "I am willing to pay $1 to prevent you from getting $99 with no tangible benefit to myself."
In repeated games you're certainly correct, but in a one-time event turning down what is effectively free money is entirely illogical.
|
On October 13 2014 22:36 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2014 11:48 KwarK wrote:
Spite in the face of unfairness isn't illogical. Of course it is. Getting $1 is better than not getting $1. By rejecting a 99/1 offer, you are saying "I am willing to pay $1 to prevent you from getting $99 with no tangible benefit to myself." In repeated games you're certainly correct, but in a one-time event turning down what is effectively free money is entirely illogical.
Your mistake is assuming humans are logical creatures, we're not vulcans.
I'm willing to bet more people would decline then accept a 99/1 split.
|
|
|
Oh let's be clear, I'm not suggesting what I think will happen, just what should happen with logical actors. That's why I talked about the vengeful idiots on the last page.
|
United States43607 Posts
On October 13 2014 22:36 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2014 11:48 KwarK wrote:
Spite in the face of unfairness isn't illogical. Of course it is. Getting $1 is better than not getting $1. By rejecting a 99/1 offer, you are saying "I am willing to pay $1 to prevent you from getting $99 with no tangible benefit to myself." In repeated games you're certainly correct, but in a one-time event turning down what is effectively free money is entirely illogical.
For some reason you're insisting that spite is valueless. This is simply untrue. Money only has value because it can get you things that you want. If fucking over the other guy is something that you want to do then it can totally be quantified in a dollar value. If anything it's more quantifiable, spite has an immediate positive outcome, money has a delayed potentially positive outcome.
I do not need to want to change A's behaviour to benefit future B's to profit from punishing him. Punishing him is its own reward if he's a selfish dick.
|
I think the term is "rational actor", which is why these kinds of questions (alongside the Prisoner's Dilemma) often don't resolve to the best possible outcome. Because humans are not usually rational.
|
United States43607 Posts
If money is a rational desirable outcome because it can buy shit that you want then shit that you want is by definition also a rational desirable outcome, even if the shit that you want is just to cost A money. Spite has value, and has value in a far more real sense than $ do.
|
On October 13 2014 22:36 CatharsisUT wrote:
Of course it is. Getting $1 is better than not getting $1. By rejecting a 99/1 offer, you are saying "I am willing to pay $1 to prevent you from getting $99 with no tangible benefit to myself."
In repeated games you're certainly correct, but in a one-time event turning down what is effectively free money is entirely illogical.
http://www.econ.nagoya-cu.ac.jp/~yhamagu/ultimatum.pdf
First google linked, because I'm lazy. Average offer is 40% of the pie, with a rejection rate a bit under 20% for an average offer.
(based on 75 previous studies)
http://metaanalysis2014.econ.uoa.gr/fileadmin/metaanalysis2014.econ.uoa.gr/uploads/Tisserand_Jean-Christian.pdf
neither the amount of money involved (1), nor the repetition of the game (2) have a significant influence on the choice of the proposer in the ultimatum game
In most cases, rejection raises above 50% when offer drops below 30%.
Problem is not a problem of logic, but of fairness perception, with lots of funny interpretations.
Why do people offer so much ?
Because Player1 would turn down an offer deemed insulting if roles were reversed
Because outside of the game, there is a point where someone who proposes a 1% share simply gets hit by a big rock and loses both the 99% and his physical integrity, so Player1 makes a satisfactory offer to ensure his survival.
Because a generous offer can also be made to get social points that could lead to services later.
Because when mom told Player1 that he could get a cookie if he shared with his sister, he'd have been in trouble if he left her scraps.
Why would people turn down any offer ?
Because Player2 would have made a larger offer if roles were reversed
Because that egoistic bastard needs to be taught a lesson so that a fair share will be distributed in a similar situation if one day it truly matters
...
|
At this point everyone is effectively saying the same thing, which is that rejecting the offer happens because player B is willing to reduce his own monetary utility to deny utility to A (despite disagreement about whether that is logical). It's clearly true in practice, as experiments show.
I think the interesting question is why does spite have value to some people? I personally don't gain any pleasure from spiting others with no personal gain. A traditional explanation would be that spiting people who act "unfairly" will teach them not to do it in the future, but this doesn't really apply in a one-time game. It seems we have a number of people in this thread who would reject a 99/1 offer, why does spite have value to you? I would not have expected that result in this thread given the general trend toward quantifiable logic rather than emotion.
|
it does not matter if it's a one time game. because it's meant for any future instance of such assinine behaviour
|
How about an Eve example:
A missioner (M) is going about his business blitzing missions and converting his own LP. Another party (K) convos him and says:
K: Hey, I can buy those LP from you and convert them myself. You can just keep running missions and ignore the logistics and research of converting LP. I know how long that takes and how it takes time away from running more missions.
M: But I can get more isk per LP converting it myself!
K: Yes but that doesn't matter. You have to take time off from missioning to convert them. You'll actually make more money per hour selling the LP to me at my rate.
M: No way, that's not fair! You're making money off of me! I'm just going to keep doing it my less lucrative way.
K: You're an idiot.
This current conversation seems to be saying "That M dude really knows what he's talking about!"
|
United States43607 Posts
It's more "that M dude values being a strong independent person who don't let no K profit from his labour more than the actual profit from his labour".
|
United States43607 Posts
Also I think whenever this K person starts saying opportunity cost over and over he's really just hoping buzzwords will result in someone giving him money.
|
|
|
^fuckin lol
20. Do you have any pets?
There's some white sponge thing growing on my junk that I'm pretty attached to.
almost fell off my chair
|
That is the best application I have ever seen to a alliance, and I got a look at some of the bni applications of people who weren't even pretending they weren't spys and awoxers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
