226. The Ultimatum Game

[@ferulebezel]

I've never found an instance of the ultimatum game being staged with life changing amounts of money. That seems to be the case with all these game theory experiments. If I'm playing the ultimatum game and some asshole only offers me U$10,000 out of a U$1,000,000 I'm taking it. If It's U$10 out of U$1,000 he can eat shit.

[@Discitus]

I've noticed that too. If they offered me half a million dollars I'd accept it without knowing how much the other guy got. He can have a trillion dollars for all I care. Doesn't matter. The half mill I get is life-changing.

[@THUNKShow]

You're in luck! www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.7.3427 tl;dr - Using large dollar values in Indonesia (where a US dollar goes a long ways), researchers found that rates of rejection went down as the stakes of the game went up, approaching zero as the amount of money on offer approaches 40 weeks worth of wages.

[@ferulebezel]

@@THUNKShow Not so much. My ill gained password to such places has been long lost. As someone who used to do a lot of tabletop war gaming there are lots of other that they have not been able to capture in it. I've also failed to be able to economically justify galactic empires for a game. I have now determined that all research behind a pay wall is just a part of a conspiracy to keep it away from the public for nefarious reasons and therefore fake.

[@Xob_Driesestig]

@@THUNKShow This has *very* interesting implications for thinking about capitalism and wage extraction.

[@ilikememes1402]

@@Xob_Driesestig @THUNK But I think variables other than the "amount" isn't the only variable (not saying this was wrong or incomplete, *but I like to add something on the stack of books*). The worth of the amount must be taken in account, you can look in Japan on this case (them having big numbers, like indonesia), unlike Indonesia -- a 3rd world country like mine -- being more less developed in welfare, economy, government; then there being cases of less security financially. I'm very sure the perception of "worth" while taking into account those things about Indonesia (them being less developed). Which means, maybe not researched yet but I think final case here is that: "Unlike Japan where most are almost has some sort of financial stability, Indonesians are just happy to get free money, because the worth here is more because you can't bargain that much in free money in a place where you have more of a need on it."

[@ToriKo_]

The asterisk (4:25 - 5:18, 7:08 - 7:24) was my favorite part of the video, you articulated what vague notions my brain always plays out when I interact with these types of ideas. I think it’s why I often comment that some ideas are ‘combinatorially explosive’, and add some nod to ‘relevance realization’ under a lot of youtube comments. It’s my way of reminding myself that often ideas and stories seem to just be biases, pushing you this way or that - and that when you piece back in all the complexity of the world, and all the way that different ideas, assertions, and frameworks interact, you’re often left no better than where you started. As a talking point, what ideas have you found that truly seem to cut through this wall of epistemological jungle? For me it would be: -relevance realization (John Verveake) -Complex Systems Thinking (Ackoff & Sterman) -idea of Adaptive and Maladaptive And some others that I’m prob forgetting

[@THUNKShow]

I get a lot of mileage out of Sellars's "Myth of the Given," as per ep. 214: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aaa4ipiQqpZ3f7M Also I think a lot about cultural evolution theory, per ep. 197: kzbin.info/www/bejne/en7Zn5iIqpico8U

[@ToriKo_]

@@THUNKShow Thanks for the thoughtful response. Both videos were really interesting, and the Sellar video also was able to articulate some of the vague notions in my head

[@cemented508]

i see thunk uploaded. i click on the video. i watch the video. i draw my own conclusions. afterwards, i like the video and read the comments. then i add my own comment, to show support. what an awesome video.

[@THUNKShow]

I see a comment on my most recent video. I read the comment. I smile, and type a quick response. Thanks!

[@luciuscaeciliuslucundus3647]

Hmm this feels kinda odd. You're offering us all incredible videos. Seems like we're taking 100% of the content so I think logically I have to accept.

[@THUNKShow]

^.^ Ain't nobody said you can't give stuff away. (And thank you! :D)

[@peterhooper3391]

The default built-in intuitive sense of justice in our species seems to consist only of a choice between Tit-for-tat and Enlightened Tit-far-tat. Of course, stepping beyond the is-ought fallacy, we are able to reasonably construct more sophisticated alternatives.

[@sweatygenius]

Very insightful and interesting, as always (though I enjoyed this one a lot more for some reason!)

[@THUNKShow]

Thanks very much! :D

[@brooksbarry4757]

dope vid, super interesting

[@THUNKShow]

Thanks very much! Glad you enjoyed it!

[@michalchik]

I would say that big problem here is not the application of game theory but the naive inadequate application of game theory. This is an iterative ultimatum game and the equilibrium happens at some sort of shelling point that is generally considered Fair probably somewhere between 50/50 and 70/30. Your goal here is to punish the ultimatum giver in the first few rounds in a way that he'll give you a deal that he considers beneficial but you don't consider exploitive.

[@Xob_Driesestig]

The last theory seems to imply that people are building a reputation of not being a pushover. If I set the precedent now it will pay off in the long run. But is that true? If all the participants are completely anonymized, does the behavior go away (or lessen)? If you play the game with very old or terminally ill people, does the behavior lessen or go away? I suspect that it won't lessen that much and that there is still an element of "punishing" arrogant pricks.

[@THUNKShow]

"Reputation" is certainly part of the network of phenomena driving UG rejection, but you're right - I don't think it fully characterizes the desire to see tyrants & bullies punished. You could reach for an evopsych or Haidt-like explanation, where the evolutionary advantages gained are sufficient to create some sort of moralizing bias deep in our psychology, but it'd be a just-so story. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@TheTrunks977]

I have one question during the throughout the experiment: can you talk with the others? Less persons talked about this little trap that you have it in a scenario.

[@marcnorderland9400]

Another great video!

[@THUNKShow]

Thanks very much! :)

[@aresmars2003]

I notice the dilemma over frugality. If someone says "Would you do this for me?" And I expect no reward, and I don't mind, I may say yes even if there's some cost, like time. But if someone says "I'll pay you $X, if you'll do Y" then I'll do a calculation, if my time used is worth $X, and if that number is too low, I'll feel maybe they are taking advantage of me. And THEN, I'll wonder why their offer is relatively stingy, and I think maybe that money is worth more to them than to me. So then maybe I'll just say "Sure, but you don't have to pay me." because that turns off my calculations. Although I admit I see the value of a transaction is it ENDS when service and payment are completed, while an unpaid favor leaves open a possible future reverse request and expectations, so the person helped the first time might want to say no, but feels compelled to say yes, even if there was no expectation, and you almost have to say later "Don't worry if you can't help, but I could use..." and make it clear its a real choice. Overall I guess I see time itself as worth $0 because it keeps moving whether I'm getting paid for it or not,especially if I'm just doing what I want to do, but add money and it feels "zero sum", and spending it is decreasing my money reserves for future needs. So I'd rather walk 2-3 miles than jump on a bus, because bus fare doesn't seem worth a short trip. But if I was earning more, then perhaps I'd value my time more, and money less.

[@JE-ee7cd]

😊👍

[@THUNKShow]

😁

[@Infantry12345]

Its kind of moving away from the original study, but I sort of wonder how roles might play into the ultimatum goal, going the opposite direction from anonymous people. Like simplifying it is super helpful, it puts the focus on how fairness plays against gains or whatever. Like I'm wondering if the person making the split was homeless and the other person well off. Would that make the other person more likely to accept the unfair split, because the homeless person needs it more? Or would it go the other way, wanting to punish them for being greedy, from the perspective of some twisted sense or "righting" social ills? Or what if the split is even, but the splitter is openly a white supremacist, and the other is literally any other demographic? Kinda digging more at that justification to pull one over on the other guy, but its not for fairness, but for ideology. How much would the supremacist have to split favoring the other person to get them to accept it? Maybe some tricky things to actually experiment with but its got me thinking of myself. How much does someone who I am opposed to need to show deference before I'm willing to give them anything? What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable split, for me? Thanks for the video, got me thinking thought like usual :)

[@drilyred]

Rejection can still be considered an evolutionary strategy and not a human human thing because monkeys also refuse unfair reward as can be seen in this video of one refusing a piece of cucumber kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3y2o6yAjamjkNE

[@PetersonSilva]

Awesome video as always! it just goes to show how economics is fundamentally flawed. Like, at the beginning you say that the 50-50 split is somehow surprising. like, no it's not. it's surprising only within the context of economicist assumptions, haha

[@ilikememes1402]

NP man, it's epic you won the battle against covid

[@Liliquan]

It’s hardly epic given that’s the vast majority of cases.

[@ilikememes1402]

@@Liliquan Yeah, but it's nice he's back to good shape now

[@THUNKShow]

Thanks my dude. (Congestion bonus: a little more bass in my voice.)

[@orterves]

Keeping all but one dollar is logical, because it's better than nothing, but giving up all but one dollar is also better than nothing - take the average and 50/50 split makes the most sense. (I'm kidding but then again, you come from nothing, you're going back to nothing - what have you lost? Nothing! Always look on the bright side of life)

[@THUNKShow]

🎵 Ba-dum, ba-dum ba-dum ba-dum.🎵

[@threethrushes]

Am I the only person who automatically said '50-50' after the rules of the game were explained?

[@orterves]

@@threethrushes 50-50 is the objectively correct answer.

[@Null257]

This is why Biden-Harris lost 14,000,000 voters off their 2020 tally. 😂 Whoever advised their campaign got them good.

[@THUNKShow]

There are all sorts of reasons, but yeah, at least some voters were like "Nah I'm good."

[@Ushiromiya_Beatrice]

I'd gladly take a single dollar even if the other person gets a million 'cause I wouldn't feel entitled to the money anyway.

[@threethrushes]

Would you take one dollar if the other person got USD99,999,999,999.99?

[@Ushiromiya_Beatrice]

@@threethrushes Even if I somehow grew bitter and jealous about the sum of some windfall money, I wouldn't want to lose a dollar just to admit it.

[@THUNKShow]

My personal reaction isn't really about feeling "entitled to the money," it's anger at someone refusing to share.

[@Ushiromiya_Beatrice]

@@THUNKShow Even if you're angry, don't act like a spiteful Virgin, be a magnanimous Chad: allow someone to keep the money.