Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[breadbocks]

I'm not a fan of pork. No deal, howie mandel.

[Gamerlord]

Everyone the same? Sure.

[Grek]

Making everyone look the same is a terrible idea that would neither resolve the problem (as people will go on hating based on creed, religion, national origin and class) nor be a good idea if it did, both for practical reasons like genetic diversity vs. disease and for human rights reasons.

[counting]

Accidental redundant post.

[counting]

The knapsack problem isn't really an ethical dilemma, but a mathematical problem. For simplicity, I'll assume that the price demands are multiples of 25$ (50, 75, 100 et cetera).

If the players expect the other player to co-operate, they should choose the high price. However, if a player expects the other to try and maximize their own reward, he/she should choose the minimum amount (50$). This is because of a reasoning chain:

A: Hmm I could maximize my profits by asking for 200$
A: No, wait... If B puts 200$ as well, I can get more by putting a slightly lower demand, like 175$...
A: But then again, B is probably thinking just like me, so I'll place it to 150$ where I still get 200$ if he's higher...

Eventually, A chooses 50$. A and B get 50$ each OR in the event B had a higher demand, A gets 100$ and B gets none.


Funny fact: If both players choose the minimum amount, they can now know for the rest of their lives that the other guy doen't really trust them

It's not just math problems, but more like testing your view of "the trust-worthy of people" around you. If you view them high, and think they are as generous as you, then people will fill a number very close to the top. But as you said, if you think people are always calculated and mean, then you will think of filling the lowest number, because you have everything to gain, but nothing to lose. Which by the way, is the equilibrium answer game theory predicted - if people are rational machines, then people will assume everyone else are bastards.  (In a out of proportion example, like range $2~$100 with bonus just $2, and game theory will predict a equilibrium of everyone choosing the lowest $2, which is kind of ridiculous.)

And actual experiment results with general people (none-professionals), show that there are often 3 major groups appear - 1 group choose a very high price very closely, 1 group loosely concentrate in the middle, and some (not much) choose the lowest.

reference
S. Cabrera, C. Capra, R. Gómez, "Behavior in one-shot traveler’s dilemma games: model and experiments with advice", Spanish Economic Review, Vol. 9, No. 2. (1 June 2007), pp. 129-152.

[Kay12]

Indeed, it's a matter of trust as well. And if one wants to maximize the whole gain (for example, the other person is a friend and his gain is also desirable), then going for minimum sum is pointless as even if you get the bonus, your friend loses it along with the extra money he asked for.

I'm not an expert on game theory although I know most of the basics. Another issue is that player would most likely develop different strategies if they had to play for longer, while the original incident is described as a one-shot game, am I right?

[counting]

Indeed, it's a matter of trust as well. And if one wants to maximize the whole gain (for example, the other person is a friend and his gain is also desirable), then going for minimum sum is pointless as even if you get the bonus, your friend loses it along with the extra money he asked for.

I'm not an expert on game theory although I know most of the basics. Another issue is that player would most likely develop different strategies if they had to play for longer, while the original incident is described as a one-shot game, am I right?

Yes, one-time strategy is different from repeat games. And repeat games have unpredicted results, sometimes it depend on the strategies involved, and it needs agent-based computation simulation, or uses experiments to gather statistic results. And they are one of the major fundamental research topics in modern economics.

Repeat game often introduce a very basic strategy - "trust first, then eye for an eye, or three strikes". It essentially assumes everyone to be trusted at the beginning and keep records, but if someone betrayed that trust, then you should retaliate, (or an advanced version, counting how many previous records are, and base on that amount to setup a strike limit, if someone used out the quota of good deeds, it's all out and revenge). Many different strategies can be set up from very simple ones to very complex. But the reasons behind those choices are always not that far from what we considered the fundamental practices of common laws and some moral standards. (Probably why I think of this being related to ethical problems)

[Soadreqm]

If the players expect the other player to co-operate, they should choose the high price. However, if a player expects the other to try and maximize their own reward, he/she should choose the minimum amount (50$). This is because of a reasoning chain:

[...]

But choosing fifty bucks only gives a maximum return of 100$, and if you reach it because a mathematical formula tells you that it's the best one, then you can reasonably expect your partner to pick the same amount, meaning that you only get 50$. That's not maximising your own profits, that's trying to ensure yourself a few dollars from someone you expect will also choose the lowest possible amount, thus ruining it for you both.

Assuming that the actual real price of the suitcase is really not a factor, I'll write down 200 dollars. If the other guy chooses 50$, well, fuck him. I'll only have lost fifty bucks by not trying to outbid him, and he'll probably feel stupid for not trying to get more money.

As for the pig, I don't really see anything wrong with eating it, but I'm having some difficulties adapting to the mindset of someone who's been a herbivore for pretty much his whole life, and raised to think that pigs are friends, not food. I probably wouldn't want to eat the pig, but on the other hand, it's the only way for him to reach piggy paradise. Yeah, not sure. That'd really depend on how appalled I was at the prospect of eating meat.

[Kay12]

But choosing fifty bucks only gives a maximum return of 100$, and if you reach it because a mathematical formula tells you that it's the best one, then you can reasonably expect your partner to pick the same amount, meaning that you only get 50$. That's not maximising your own profits, that's trying to ensure yourself a few dollars from someone you expect will also choose the lowest possible amount, thus ruining it for you both.

No, if you expect the other guy to take 50$, you really should take 50$ because that's the most you can get in that case.

Assuming that the actual real price of the suitcase is really not a factor, I'll write down 200 dollars. If the other guy chooses 50$, well, fuck him. I'll only have lost fifty bucks by not trying to outbid him, and he'll probably feel stupid for not trying to get more money.

Uh, I think you're being the stupid one, or then you just didn't read the problem carefully enough.
Oh, I see what you mean. However, it is pointless to demand 200$ unless you have a real reason to believe that your opponent will demand the same (and even then you could optimize by lowering your request slightly to gather the bonus at the other guy's expense). If I got 100$ for someone who greedily just wants it all, I'd consider the other person stupid for not thinking his strategy through.

[counting]

...
Uh, I think you're being the stupid one, or then you just didn't read the problem carefully enough.
Oh, I see what you mean. However, it is pointless to demand 200$ unless you have a real reason to believe that your opponent will demand the same (and even then you could optimize by lowering your request slightly to gather the bonus at the other guy's expense). If I got 100$ for someone who greedily just wants it all, I'd consider the other person stupid for not thinking his strategy through.

 

Despite all the theory or mathematical analysis, for I personally - if it's a one-shot deal, the economics in me will choose $50. And the good and fair guy in me, will want to show some quality and generosity of choosing $150. Since sometimes good guys are meant to be "dumb" and not gaining benefits from other people's lost. Whatever my coworker choose, he/she will always get at least $100, which is like a half of max, and quite a decent amount. And if he/she doesn't think its enough, I'll probably give some of the bonus back.

On the other hand, if he/she chooses from $100~$150, I'll call it fair, because at least both of us get more than minimum. But if he/she chooses to be mean and cheap choosing below $100, thus tries to rip off me, then he/she should know that the actual winner in choosing the low price is "the insurance company", since in that case the insurance company pays the least. And that's why its a good policy for insurance companies, but not for people try to claim the insurances. (And economists love the game of maximizing profits, and zero margins)

[Kay12]

In real life in a similar situation, if it was a total stranger, I would attempt the rip-off. If it was a friend, I'd attempt mutual maximization in hopes he does so too. Or then I'd just go for the real value of the case, although I consider that strategy to be sub-par compared to the mutual maximization.

[Soadreqm]

No, if you expect the other guy to take 50$, you really should take 50$ because that's the most you can get in that case.

Well, yeah, if you really expect the other guy to do that, sure. If you're widely known as a douchebag, and thus have a reason to assume that the co-player would assume you to pick 50$, you probably should pick 50$. However, reading the wikipedia article for the game, that's not really a reasonable expectation most of the time. A lot of people think "more money = more better" and just write a large amount. A lot of people will be willing to risk it and assume the co-player to cooperate to an extent, and write a large amount. It kind of depends on whether you are playing the game with a person or a being of pure logic.

It also depends on whether you can afford to lose. 50$ is just low enough that I'm somewhat okay with not getting anything in the event that the other player does choose that. The only way to win, assuming you aren't the insurance company, is not caring about the outcome. It probably becomes more glaring as the bonus gets smaller. It seems the classical example is a range of 2 to 100 dollars. In game theoretical terms, it's the exact same situation, but for some reason virtually no one wrote down two dollars.

it is pointless to demand 200$ unless you have a real reason to believe that your opponent will demand the same (and even then you could optimize by lowering your request slightly to gather the bonus at the other guy's expense). If I got 100$ for someone who greedily just wants it all, I'd consider the other person stupid for not thinking his strategy through.

I'm assuming that the other guy is probably going to demand somewhere over 150$, which doesn't sound unreasonable to me, and don't really mind losing if I get more than a hundred bucks for it.

[Kay12]

I'm assuming that the other guy is probably going to demand somewhere over 150$, which doesn't sound unreasonable to me, and don't really mind losing if I get more than a hundred bucks for it.

So, you're assuming the other guy to ask for that much. But what if this assumption is unfounded? The other guy may as well jot down a slightly smaller number to net more on you. Mind you, if he wants 150$ and thinks you might be somewhere between 100-150$, he can just drop his offer to 100$ and still receive 150$.

Besides, why demand 200$ in the first place? It's not optimal for either of you if you expect the other player to choose 150$. Choosing 199$ would net you the same if your assumption turned out correct, but more if the other guy gets greedy. Actually, this is true for all values (151, 199).

To max your profits, you should always bet just a bit less than your opponent, but you can't really know how much your opponent is going to offer. Cooperation is hard, because even the slightest deviation causes large bonuses/maluses to accumulate.

[Felius]

The year is 2050.
(...)
With a Button press you can destroy all these petty things people are so proud of.

Do you do it?

This dillema doesn't really work. People will keep hating. Unless you make literally that no person is any different of other person in any way, including thoughts, beliefs, location of living, etc. people will find something to hate others.

[shadenight123]

The year is 2050.
(...)
With a Button press you can destroy all these petty things people are so proud of.

Do you do it?

This dillema doesn't really work. People will keep hating. Unless you make literally that no person is any different of other person in any way, including thoughts, beliefs, location of living, etc. people will find something to hate others.

even in that case...what sort of "anonymous" person are you referring to?
everyone has to become someone anonymous.
So why not make everyone like me, with that button? wouldn't it be the same? it would be even better, because "we" wouldn't kill ourselves, we might argue about who's the original one, but we'd go with a direct democracy, because the thoughts of each of us would be the same...
and nothing would happen ever again.