Pretty interesting live example of the prisoners dilemma...
Guy wins UK game show using logic, wait for it... [VIDEO]
Guy wins UK game show using logic, wait for it... [VIDEO]
Guy wins UK game show using logic....
- Thread starter jfizzle
- Start date
For those who don't know what that is and are too lazy to look it up...
He did a good job convincing the other guy he was absolutely going to steal. I believed him lol. Basically forcing the other contestant to take "split." Well played sir.
He did a good job convincing the other guy he was absolutely going to steal. I believed him lol. Basically forcing the other contestant to take "split." Well played sir.
He almost chose steal just to deny the other guy the money for being a fuckin' prick. Could have easily gone bad. He changed his mind at the very last second and took split.
Yea, but the other guy was so adamant about it, so it was the only thing he could really do.
I wonder if they continued this show after majority of the public saw how that was done. It's the only way you can actually do it, fairly. Actually never mind, the next group, probably thought they would do the same, and then one of the fuckers actually steals. Fuck that dilemma....
Anyways it's better to see it like this.
Replace Cooperate with Split and Defect with Steal.
Attachments
Sorry, I was homeschooled. It didn't include game theory.
Secondly, I think you misunderstood what I was saying because I didn't use any names. I meant Ibrahim changed his mind at the last second, he picked up the steal ball first because he was obviously getting agitated with Nick and was probably thinking "fuck this guy, I'm going to take steal too and we'll both get nothing", he was swearing at him, calling him an idiot etc.
Even though that isn't the right move to make, his emotions nearly made him do it, that's all I'm saying.
The thing is, the other guy already said he intends to share, him not sharing goes against his intentions. If you read Cialdini's Influence people tend to not go against something they already committed to publicly.
So the guy claiming steal is in the drivers seat either way. If he picks share and the other guy picks steal, he could say he did that so that they would split. The other guy would feel bad and want to split with him.
On the other side, with how convincing the guy was, the only option he truly could have had was get nothing or hope to trust the guy to split. Trusting the guy to split is better than nothing.
Basically the guy saying he was picking steal would have benefited in multiple ways.
You guys don't play much poker do you?
It's a good tactic, put the other person on the defensive, play it off as being an idiot, get the other player to make the play you want them to make with near certainty.
Why does it work? Well if you tell the other guy that you're stealing, and make him believe you are stealing, it means if the other player chose steal is a loss for both of them. The guy having the pressure put on him is put in a position where he believes he can not get a better deal, as if they both pick steal, they both lose. By taking that option off the table, his only real option is to take split, or so he thinks. You'd have to be a real vindictive SOB to go steal there. This forces the his opponent to make the choice he wants him to make, he was going for the split the entire time. Well played sir, well played.
It's a good tactic, put the other person on the defensive, play it off as being an idiot, get the other player to make the play you want them to make with near certainty.
Why does it work? Well if you tell the other guy that you're stealing, and make him believe you are stealing, it means if the other player chose steal is a loss for both of them. The guy having the pressure put on him is put in a position where he believes he can not get a better deal, as if they both pick steal, they both lose. By taking that option off the table, his only real option is to take split, or so he thinks. You'd have to be a real vindictive SOB to go steal there. This forces the his opponent to make the choice he wants him to make, he was going for the split the entire time. Well played sir, well played.
False. Perhaps in Microeconomics it is pretty important, wouldn't say the only worthwhile one though.
Macroeconomics is hell of a lot cooler though.
Fuck all this strategy bullshit! The name of the show is fucking GOLDEN BALLS FFS. Ya'll fools be slippin.
Macroeconomics is hella political. 50-50 science and politics imo. Also, calculus sucks and macroeconomics is basically calculus all the fucking time. But really, macroeconomic mainstream theories have a long track record of not predicting anything. There is also the problem of macroeconomic theory not being isolated from the subject it studies as every mainstream econ has learned the same theories so they influence the economy to fit the theory.
Well you're somewhat right on the "not predicting anything." They are able to predict what happens, but every prediction can be countered by another prediction so in essence, there is no prediction. That was probably the most frustrating thing abut studying econ.
As for not being isolated, I believe you are talking about it being a self-fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps..
way too early to argue imo....