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.

Game theory. More like shame theory am I right?

What a fucking [A-hole].

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.

Your video, "Game Theory" in British Game Show is Tense!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 18 Badge!

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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


Fixed.

[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.