Tags for this video have been changed from 'family feud, answer, game show' to 'family feud, answer, game show, steve harvey' - edited by silvercord

Fun with knowledge. I can't think of anything equivalent to QI on American TV. Too bad all they copy are sitcoms and reality based game shows.

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)

>> ^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)

>> ^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.

@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.

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.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 18 Badge!

>> ^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.

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:

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.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^ant:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Cheating FTW!
(nit-pick: pounds not dollars)
length=9:53

It's a play list.
Is there a cheat compilation of American version?

I saw that. So the length is for the whole play list then?


Hi marinara,

Sorry I put the wrong length on your video--I make mistakes.

Could I ask something? How do you embed playlists? I've tried a couple of different ways and can't do it. Is this because I only Bronze?

Any help you shoot my way will be appreciated. Anyway, It's no big deal and I see you around

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.

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.