[edit] SPOILERS BELOW. WATCH VIDEO FIRST.

There are a couple truths in Game Theory. Number 1: your best chance is to always steal. In this case if both steal I think they get nothing, so this changes the strategy a bit. Number 2: never trust women.

Agreed, always steal first.

However the prisoners dilemma becomes much more interesting if it repeats.

edit: tags kinda give away the ending, btw

>> ^ChaosEngine:
tags kinda give away the ending, btw


Fixed.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 1:59pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

Nice. I seldom see game theory illustrated in realtime in a workable, realistic example.

I wonder if 50,000 quid is worth all that guilt.

I mean, I know its a gameshow and all, and she played the game better than him, but still. She devastated him.

@blankfist c'mon man, don't spoil the ending

Where's Batman when you need him, eh Steve?

One thing that I pointed out to a former professor, is that the threat of retaliation is never accounted for in the simple game theory model. For the prisoner's dilemna, I called it the "threat of being shanked" if one chooses to squeal.

As we see in the video, the emotional response to being played is a deep one that can lead to a Law and Order episode.

As mentioned above, repeating the game a few times would somewhat account for the consequences of uncooperative behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Friend_or_Foe.3F

Friend or Foe? is a game show that aired from 2002 to 2005 on the Game Show Network in the United States. It is an example of the prisoner's dilemma game tested by real people, but in an artificial setting. On the game show, three pairs of people compete. As each pair is eliminated, it plays a game similar to the prisoner's dilemma to determine how the winnings are split. If they both cooperate (Friend), they share the winnings 50–50. If one cooperates and the other defects (Foe), the defector gets all the winnings and the cooperator gets nothing. If both defect, both leave with nothing. Notice that the payoff matrix is slightly different from the standard one given above, as the payouts for the "both defect" and the "cooperate while the opponent defects" cases are identical. This makes the "both defect" case a weak equilibrium, compared with being a strict equilibrium in the standard prisoner's dilemma. If you know your opponent is going to vote Foe, then your choice does not affect your winnings. In a certain sense, Friend or Foe has a payoff model between prisoner's dilemma and the game of Chicken.

The payoff matrix is
Cooperate Defect
Cooperate 1, 1 0, 2
Defect 2, 0 0, 0

This payoff matrix was later used on the British television programmes Shafted and Golden Balls. The latter show has been analyzed by a team of economists. See: Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes are Large.

It was also used earlier in the UK Channel 4 gameshow Trust Me, hosted by Nick Bateman, in 2000.

>> ^blankfist:

[edit] SPOILERS BELOW. WATCH VIDEO FIRST.
There are a couple truths in Game Theory. Number 1: your best chance is to always steal. In this case if both steal I think they get nothing, so this changes the strategy a bit. Number 2: never trust women.

You can shorten this to just Number 2.

Honestly, as much as it would suck I'd rather lose out on the money than be a person that takes it like that. I couldn't live with myself denying someone else $50,000+. I mean that guy is crying and all he wanted to do was something honest and make it so both people walk away with something.

I wouldn't talk or pander to my opponent I'd just be like "I'm going to split I hope you split too".

Also is there any news articles related to this? I'd be interested to see if anyone chooses to split later.

The guy shouldn't feel so bad. He did the best he could. She was going to steal no matter what, meaning that even if he chose to steal he would have left with nothing.

Shitty people fuck it up for everyone, not so much you can do about that except to live your own life with integrity.

Oh, and usually in iterative games "cooperate" is the best initial strategy until someone screws you, and then you switch to copying their behavior (tit for tat).

He might have been the one who got fucked over, but I'm pretty sure she's the one who lost.

Of course, failing a test of character probably isn't a big deal when you can buy 1,000 bottles of scotch to drown your sorrows. Or, you know. The other guy's house.

yaaa.....I would've taken it all in a second.

Provided there are no norms to be set, as in repeating the experiment, then it is RATIONAL to steal.

Game theory is just sociopathy codified. It takes extremely constructed conditions, like game shows and corporate governance, to actually make it not plainly stupid.

It shows how contrived this is that this game matrix is easily exploited.

One player can say that they are voting steal, and that they will split the winnings, so the the other player better pick share if they want anything.

Their only decision becomes weather they want to screw their opponent more than they trust them.

>> ^blankfist:

[edit] SPOILERS BELOW. WATCH VIDEO FIRST.
There are a couple truths in Game Theory. Number 1: your best chance is to always steal. In this case if both steal I think they get nothing, so this changes the strategy a bit. Number 2: never trust women.

Alternative vid title: Why Libertarianism won't work.

Hang on, before anything happens...... This seems dangerous. If someone had just stolen 50 thousand quid off me, i'd go fucking MENTAL at them. On camera, whatever, i'd be swearing my head off, ranting my head off. I dunno how close i'd be to wrecking the set either.

Dangerous quiz show!

Edit: OH. MY. GOD. I'm speechless about what she did there. Was it worth it? REALLY? She looked as devastated as he did. If i was here, i'd have just given him half. The amount of money involved wouldn't even come into question; i'm sorry, you can have half.

>> ^longde:

One thing that I pointed out to a former professor, is that the threat of retaliation is never accounted for in the simple game theory model. For the prisoner's dilemna, I called it the "threat of being shanked" if one chooses to squeal.
As we see in the video, the emotional response to being played is a deep one that can lead to a Law and Order episode.
As mentioned above, repeating the game a few times would somewhat account for the consequences of uncooperative behavior.


The threat of being shanked is truly a part of more sophisticated game theory - "Reiterated Prisoner's Dilemma" is what you're referring to and it's much more biologically accurate, most notably for predicting whether organisms will cooperate or not in mutualistic or commensal associations whereby they have to interact over and over, so something like you saw here would NOT go unpunished.

Probably already been said, but there's no real way to win.

you should have three choices, the two for split/steal obviously, and a third one to "catch" them. Honestly, this man was so intent on sharing his prize it would be easy to steal off him, and if there was a third option where he could catch her stealing and get the money, then I think it's fair game.

She (to me, at least) was always going to steal that money, so no matter what, I know I would be going home with nothing. I could either choose the split, and get nothing, or steal, and get nothing. Just seems like the end result in the scenario is pointless.

There's another issue here - it's a game show and as the saying goes, don't hate the player, hate the game.

She didn't actually steal £50,075. No crime was committed, no rules were broken. I'd feel guilty if I was her, but to be honest, I don't see why - it's a game, them's the rules. When I get bluffed in poker, I don't hate the opponent for lying, I respect them for playing the game well.

I'd still want a security guard standing just off camera

So now both parties are unhappy. The only way for both parties to be happy is to cooperate. Sharing things with others sets off rewards systems in your body because that is the optimal solution for the survival of the species. That girl looked like she was about to puke at the end of that clip and she should have known better.

-karl

Bitches man.

I wonder if it would be legally binding to say, "If I win the full amount, I agree to split half of it with you." In which case, he could've said that, and added, "I'm going to choose steal, so best if you choose split."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Ha. This is actually quite succinct and clever. Corollary: self-interest can't fix everything.

Great video - and I agree that the social stigma and guilt are not worth it. I bet 9 out of 10 times on this show, they did the share. Anyone have the stats?


>> ^direpickle:

>> ^blankfist:
[edit] SPOILERS BELOW. WATCH VIDEO FIRST.
There are a couple truths in Game Theory. Number 1: your best chance is to always steal. In this case if both steal I think they get nothing, so this changes the strategy a bit. Number 2: never trust women.
Alternative vid title: Why Libertarianism won't work.

Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:

1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.

Also, in real-life Prisoner's Dilemma in biological situations there's no talking and negotiating bullshit beforehand. It just happens. Whatever is chosen is chosen and the two parties move on to make another decision later (many times based on the experience they just had). None of this psychological crap.

Game theory. More like shame theory am I right?

What a fucking [A-hole].

Imagine they pick the wrong bloke as a contestant, someone who takes the term "split" quite literally if he gets fucked over. That would be my kind of game show.

>> ^RedSky:

Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


Absolutely disagree. Stealing is rationally and morally the best choice only if your morals include the sentence, "No one else should have any money if I don't have any money." Split is the best choice, because it guarantees that no matter what happens, the entire sum is paid out.

This supposes that it's better for people to have money than for the game show to have money, though.

I'd argue that applying any system of morality is at least partially about punishing bad and rewarding good behavior through your actions, not just being broadly benevolent. And as you said, it goes without saying that the amount of absolute money is conserved regardless.>> ^direpickle:

>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.

Absolutely disagree. Stealing is rationally and morally the best choice only if your morals include the sentence, "No one else should have any money if I don't have any money." Split is the best choice, because it guarantees that no matter what happens, the entire sum is paid out.
This supposes that it's better for people to have money than for the game show to have money, though.

>> ^RedSky:

I'd argue that applying any system of morality is at least partially about punishing bad and rewarding good behavior through your actions, not just being broadly benevolent. And as you said, it goes without saying that the amount of absolute money is conserved regardless.>> ^direpickle:
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.

Absolutely disagree. Stealing is rationally and morally the best choice only if your morals include the sentence, "No one else should have any money if I don't have any money." Split is the best choice, because it guarantees that no matter what happens, the entire sum is paid out.
This supposes that it's better for people to have money than for the game show to have money, though.



Your solution is to pick steal in case the other person decides to be an ass and pick steal to preemptively punish them. You, of course, are going to be a benevolent winner, so it's okay that you're picking steal.

With your plan of action, the moral and rational choice results in nobody ever getting any money, if everyone is moral and rational.

Your sarcasm would seem to suggest that I would lie about my secretly sinister intentions in a hypothetical example of my own creation.

To make my strategy work though, you'd have to assure the other person that you will steal beforehand and that the only chance they have of getting anything is to share themselves. In a classic prisoners delimma scenario what you said at the end is correct as there's no opportunity for collaboration. >> ^direpickle:

>> ^RedSky:
I'd argue that applying any system of morality is at least partially about punishing bad and rewarding good behavior through your actions, not just being broadly benevolent. And as you said, it goes without saying that the amount of absolute money is conserved regardless.>> ^direpickle:
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.

Absolutely disagree. Stealing is rationally and morally the best choice only if your morals include the sentence, "No one else should have any money if I don't have any money." Split is the best choice, because it guarantees that no matter what happens, the entire sum is paid out.
This supposes that it's better for people to have money than for the game show to have money, though.


Your solution is to pick steal in case the other person decides to be an ass and pick steal to preemptively punish them. You, of course, are going to be a benevolent winner, so it's okay that you're picking steal.
With your plan of action, the moral and rational choice results in nobody ever getting any money, if everyone is moral and rational.

@RedSky: No, no. I'm not suggesting at all that you would be dishonest. My sarcasm was more directed at the suggestion that your motivation for doing something that you're punishing others for doing makes it okay.

If you are deciding that a move is the most rational, you have to think of how it would play out against someone making identical moves. What if the other person tells you the exact same thing that you're telling them? That they're going to steal and then share it with you?

@direpickle

I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

@direpickle @RedSky

Game Theory is dumb because it forces us to talk about morality in a vacuum. Real life choices have consequences that go beyond when the cameras shut off or an experiment ends.

That said, direpickle is mostly correct in saying that the "rational" choice, if executed by everyone, results in nobody getting any money. Having said that, how does that make the choice rational...unless you assume the other person does not have the same information as you? In this case you are in effect gambling on the other person having less "game theory information" than you.

You can still be wrong even if the average payout is higher by choosing steal. In any given specific case your payout can still be zero, regardless of your "theory". Really, the only option is, as mentioned, to tell the other person you fully intend to steal, but that you will share half the money if they pick share...and then actually share. If they pick steal even after you say this, you can just call them a moron and go home the same person you were before the show.

They should have the same game show and add in a box of kittens that gets dumped into a giant blender if either person chooses "steal". Y'know, to add in real consequences to the stealing other than "feeling bad", which many people (psychopaths) will not feel.

>> ^RedSky:

Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


Dumbass.

>> ^RedSky:

Oh, are you just joining our discussion?>> ^cosmovitelli:
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.

Dumbass.



If both people followed your advice they would all be constant losers = dumbass.

(If you really think sociopathic self righteousness is the answer, try a short holiday in Somalia and discover what better people are doing for you every moment of your life)

If you'd take a break from your tourette-like fit you'd notice that this has been adressed, but then again that would prevent you from casting wily aspersions.>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^RedSky:
Oh, are you just joining our discussion?>> ^cosmovitelli:
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.

Dumbass.


If both people followed your advice they would all be constant losers = dumbass.
(If you really think sociopathic self righteousness is the answer, try a short holiday in Somalia and discover what better people are doing for you every moment of your life)

Sooooo. this is a dupe of:
http://videosift.com/video/Golden-Balls-Prisoner-s-Dilemna-with-Gameshow
but it would be a shame to loose all of these comments. quite a dilemma.