Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
    If you do that though, the other guy is actually in an optimal position because you are very sure he will split, which is what everyone wants to convince the other person of.
    Nah what I mean is, tell the other guy that you're going to steal, but will then write them a cheque. This means their only option is to split, because they know stealing will make them lose everything. But you actually split- sharing it out between the two of you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Maybe, maybe not. We wouldn't know until we were actually in that situation. How often do you give large sums of money to random strangers? That's essentially what you're saying here, and frankly I don't believe you.



    Either way, that's not within the rules of the game. That's an outside agreement with no true bearing on the question at hand. The game gives two options, split or steal, and there is no reason to ever pick split. If you can't see that then you're either being argumentative for the sake of it or you lack basic cognitive ability.
    According to you game theory, you only stand to win by splitting. If you split, and I split no matter how small the possibility of me giving you the cash after the game-show is over you gain something. If you steal, I will steal and you get nothing.

    I have both ethics and intelligence and a bit of cash so I'm confident I would share.

    Now if you want to discuss for academic purposes what strategy a normal person should adopt to maximise their profits then: yes, they should just steal. However, ethics also come into play and selflessness.

    This game is somewhat artificial. In life there are usually repeated occurrences. Suppose you were to play this game 10* in a row with me. If you stole from me in all but the last round, I would punish you in subsequent rounds. The most successful people would be those who split.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Are you serious? You're basing your opinion on an assumption of what the other person will do, whereas no assumption is needed to see that there is no downside to stealing. Either I get it all or none if I steal, whereas conversely I'm equally likely to get none if I split but if I do happen to win the prize is halved. There is no logical reason to split, unless you actually want the other person to win, which defeats the purpose really. You can always give them money afterwards if you want...

    The proof is in the pudding really, if we played the game right now by your logic you'd split, whereas I'd steal by my logic. I'd walk away the winner.
    I'm entirely serious. Your analysis is shockingly shallow.
    I think you may note the 'if' at the start of my comment, and had you done any game theory at all (or at least, at the level for your comment), you'd know this is the assumption you make. And it doesn't hold. Like, ever. But should it hold, it's entirely irrelevant what you do, nobody will ever win.
    Also, you're working off a very singular utility function for value, which I appear not to share.

    Edit; also, reading your later posts, looks likely you haven't looked at too much of this stuff. The wikipedia page on the prisoner's dilemma may be of interest.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ice_Queen)
    Steal every time.

    Did you watch the episode where they put together four of the biggest 'losers' (i.e. those who said split and their opponent said steal) to see what happened?

    Spoiler:
    Show
    They both split at the end
    What a nice surprise
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    According to you game theory, you only stand to win by splitting. 1) If you split, and I split no matter how small the possibility of me giving you the cash after the game-show is over you gain something. If you steal, I will steal and you get nothing.

    2) I have both ethics and intelligence and a bit of cash so I'm confident I would share.

    Now if you want to discuss for 3) academic purposes what strategy a normal person should adopt to maximise their profits then: 4) yes, they should just steal. However, ethics also come into play and 5) selflessness.

    This game is somewhat artificial. In life there are usually repeated occurrences. 6) Suppose you were to play this game 10* in a row with me. If you stole from me in all but the last round, I would punish you in subsequent rounds. The most successful people would be those who split.
    Sigh, this grows tedious. You're degrading yourself with your inability to back down on a point where you are clearly wrong. It's not an opinion, it's a fact...

    1) At what point did the players agree to share their choices in advance? If I steal, you don't know whether I've stolen or split, hence this point is borderline idiocy.

    2) What does that have to do with anything? Firstly, any outside deals are not within the boundaries of the game, so as explained previously it's a moot point. If you're just going to add in random deals, then perhaps I should offer you a ferrari on my word of honour in exchange for you picking the split? Secondly, "a bit of cash"? What has your financial situation got to do with anything, it's the blooming winnings we're talking about not your personal savings...

    3) Academic? Really?

    4) Thanks for agreeing with me. Makes your argument a little incoherent though don't you think?

    5) Selflessness? The object is to win the game. If you're going to change the object to 'make friends', then that's simply a different matter entirely. Might as well say the object is to make as little as possible, then you're always best off picking split. This is a seriously dumb point, might as well say the object of football isn't to score goals but rather to be 'selfless'.

    6) What on earth are you on about? 10 times in a row? Have you seen the programme? Of course that again changes things, but it's not the blooming game is it? If you're argument is so ridiculously flawed you have to resort to attempting to fundamental alter the game to include different aspects to give you something worth saying, then perhaps it's time to concede.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    I'm entirely serious. Your analysis is shockingly shallow.
    I think you may note the 'if' at the start of my comment, and had you done any game theory at all (or at least, at the level for your comment), you'd know this is the assumption you make. And it doesn't hold. Like, ever. But should it hold, it's entirely irrelevant what you do, nobody will ever win.
    Also, you're working off a very singular utility function for value, which I appear not to share.

    Edit; also, reading your later posts, looks likely you haven't looked at too much of this stuff. The wikipedia page on the prisoner's dilemma may be of interest.
    When you're done chewing on a textbook (or wikipedia?), come back to the real world. I've at no point discussed game theory. There is no way you can possibly make a valid argument against stealing in this situation. It is the logical choice of action. There is no benefit to be had for the individual in splitting. Of course for the collective there is benefit in splitting, but everybody with an ounce of common sense knows in this game you can not possibly lose anything by stealing whereas you can absolutely lose something by splitting.

    Explain to me how there can be an advantage in me choosing split, either if my opponent chooses split or chooses steal, presuming both players don't know the choice of the other in advance (as with the real game).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    When you're done chewing on a textbook (or wikipedia?), come back to the real world. There is no way you can possibly make a valid argument against stealing in this situation. It is the logical choice of action. There is no benefit to be had for the individual in splitting. Of course for the collective there is benefit in splitting, but everybody with an ounce of common sense knows in this game you can not possibly lose anything by stealing whereas you can absolutely lose something by splitting.

    Explain to me how there can be an advantage in me choosing split, either if my opponent chooses split or chooses steal, presuming both players don't know the choice of the other in advance (as with the real game).
    I have, multiple times. Try to look beyond a single player 'rational' argument. If any number of people ever thought like that, nothing would ever happen. I think, off the top of my head, 'The Selfish Gene' explains this relatively well. Simply try to explain how, assuming any level of 'rationality' on behalf of your opponent, why your choice means anything? They steal, so my decision is irrelevant. Once you spot that, you can try to move beyond the simplistic one player analysis.

    (Also, FWIW, you can't lose anything by splitting. You can only gain in either situation. I'm pretty pissed and even I can see that.)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Sigh, this grows tedious. You're degrading yourself with your inability to back down on a point where you are clearly wrong. It's not an opinion, it's a fact...
    .
    Look, it is clear that we will not a agree. Ultimately, it comes down to differences in how you view the game? Do you regard a Steal-Steal outcome as winning? I do not, that is losing and worse having your moral integrity besmirched. I would have just thought what fools we have been if I were in a steal-steal outcome. Had we co-operated we could have won the money, but instead we let the greed get the better of us.

    You can draw your kind of reasoning to all sorts of parallels in society if you really want. Rack up this country's debt and let the next generation pay, abuse fossil-fuels because and the environment, steal from the liquor store when the cashier is not attending. After all, it is all part of the game of life, and who cares what happens to the next person. The moral rules we construct are arbitrary, after all. As arbitrary as the rules in a game-show.

    Taken to the extreme, the principle you are advocating leads to the destruction of society, through the selfish behaviour of individuals. And so too does it in this game. When both parties act immorally they get zilch. This game is essentially a parable for good codes of conduct. No, it's more than that. It serves an educational purpose to shows you why we construct such rules as in law. Law stops humanity from doing the stupid thing and ****ing it all up. That is why it is moral in this situation to not steal.

    It is good that there are still a select few far-sighted people with at least a modicum of morality who don't steal. And that is what enables everyone on the show to reap whatever cash they can, whether rightly or wrongly. The winners are indebted to those who split.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    I have, multiple times. 1) Try to look beyond a single player 'rational' argument. 2) If any number of people ever thought like that, nothing would ever happen. I think, off the top of my head, 'The Selfish Gene' explains this relatively well. Simply try to explain how, 3) assuming any level of 'rationality' on behalf of your opponent, why your choice means anything? They steal, so my decision is irrelevant. Once you spot that, you can try to move beyond the simplistic 4) one player analysis.

    5) (Also, FWIW, you can't lose anything by splitting. You can only gain in either situation. I'm pretty pissed and even I can see that.)
    1) I am a single player, why shouldn't I make a rational single player decision?

    2) Evidently not everyone is rational, or the game would be pointless.

    3) Assuming they are rational, it doesn't. Nobody wins. However assuming they are rational, I don't win by splitting either. This assumption about the opponent is a big leap though, why are we presuming they are rational and understand the game? This isn't a skill game, after all you're basically relying on your opponent to mess up.

    4) Again, the question was quite simple. I am one player.

    5) I'll take it your drunken state is preventing you from reading properly. "You can not possibly lose anything by stealing whereas you can absolutely lose something by splitting." If I steal, I either get 100% of the profits if opponent splits or 0% of the profits if opponent steals. If I split, I either get 50% of the profits if opponent splits or 0% of the profits if opponent steals. Therefore by splitting I stand to lose 50% of the potential profits, compared to if I'd simply stolen. Whereas by stealing there is no combination where I stand to lose anything more than I would have done by splitting. So yes, you do stand to lose when comparing the two options.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    5) Selflessness? The object is to win the game. If you're going to change the object to 'make friends', then that's simply a different matter entirely. Might as well say the object is to make as little as possible, then you're always best off picking split. This is a seriously dumb point, might as well say the object of football isn't to score goals but rather to be 'selfless'.
    You wouldn't rob the liquor store, even if you knew you wouldn't get caught, so why do you steal in this game? Perhaps it is your actions which are in fact inconsistent, and you are the one acting irrationally?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    Look, it is clear that we will not a agree. Ultimately, it comes down to differences in how you view the game? Do you regard a Steal-Steal outcome as winning? I do not, that is losing and worse having your moral integrity besmirched. I would have just thought what fools we have been if I were in a steal-steal outcome. Had we co-operated we could have won the money, but instead we let the greed get the better of us.

    You can draw your kind of reasoning to all sorts of parallels in society if you really want. Rack up this country's debt and let the next generation pay, abuse fossil-fuels because and the environment, steal from the liquor store when the cashier is not attending. After all, it is all part of the game of life, and who cares what happens to the next person. The moral rules we construct are arbitrary, after all. As arbitrary as the rules in a game-show.

    Taken to the extreme, the principle you are advocating leads to the destruction of society, through the selfish behaviour of individuals. And so too does it in this game. When both parties act immorally they get zilch. This game is essentially a parable for good codes of conduct. No, it's more than that. It serves an educational purpose to shows you why we construct such rules as in law. Law stops humanity from doing the stupid thing and ****ing it all up. That is why it is moral in this situation to not steal.

    It is good that there are still a select few far-sighted people with at least a modicum of morality who don't steal. And that is what enables everyone on the show to reap whatever cash they can, whether rightly or wrongly. The winners are indebted to those who split.
    I've crossed out the bits with no relevance whatsoever to the question at hand. You're seriously reaching.

    No I don't regard a steal-steal outcome as winning, however if I change my option to split then I have a split-steal outcome which is equally not winning. No benefit in splitting, whereas by stealing if the opponent does choose split, I double my winnings. That is a win. I don't know how you've turned this in to a moral dilemma, it's a game designed to win money. Do you blame a footballer for scoring a goal and not just sharing the draw? Should poker players always fold to prevent anyone potentially losing money? Why do you treat this game any different to those?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    You wouldn't rob the liquor store, even if you knew you wouldn't get caught, so why do you steal in this game? Perhaps it is your actions which are in fact inconsistent, and you are the one acting irrationally?
    The game is... A GAME. The objective of the game is to win the money.

    I think you've got yourself royally confused over the word 'steal'. You're taking this 'steal' play in the game to actually be on par with an act of theft, where you take something that doesn't belong to you. It is not, the other player doesn't own the money in this game, the object is to win the game and the steal option is simply a play. It's not actual theft...

    Would you object if the 'steal' option was named 'keep'?

    Keep or split - which do you choose?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    1) I am a single player, why shouldn't I make a rational single player decision?

    2) Evidently not everyone is rational, or the game would be pointless.

    3) Assuming they are rational, it doesn't. Nobody wins. However assuming they are rational, I don't win by splitting either. This assumption about the opponent is a big leap though, why are we presuming they are rational and understand the game? This isn't a skill game, after all you're basically relying on your opponent to mess up.

    4) Again, the question was quite simple. I am one player.

    5) I'll take it your drunken state is preventing you from reading properly. "You can not possibly lose anything by stealing whereas you can absolutely lose something by splitting." If I steal, I either get 100% of the profits if opponent splits or 0% of the profits if opponent steals. If I split, I either get 50% of the profits if opponent splits or 0% of the profits if opponent steals. Therefore by splitting I stand to lose 50% of the potential profits, compared to if I'd simply stolen. Whereas by stealing there is no combination where I stand to lose anything more than I would have done by splitting. So yes, you do stand to lose when comparing the two options.
    1 - Because it ends up absolutely suboptimal. Absolutely anyone can see this. Have you done any simple game theory? This seems to be what you're trying to apply, but given it works on assuming dominating strategies being chosen, you will never win anything.

    2 - Deep, yo.

    3 - No. Assuming they are 'rational', nobody wins. Rationality suggests that a win (of some sort) is produced by a split, whilst there is a chance of no win by choosing steal. To some extent this depends on your definition of win, but hardly.

    4 - Because relying on one player is nonsense! Look at any time people have tested this. Seriously.

    5 - You're skipping any kind of belief in an opponent who can think, which makes the analysis ludicrously simplistic., and basically, not worth a damn.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    I've crossed out the bits with no relevance whatsoever to the question at hand. You're seriously reaching.

    No I don't regard a steal-steal outcome as winning, however if I change my option to split then I have a split-steal outcome which is equally not winning. No benefit in splitting, whereas by stealing if the opponent does choose split, I double my winnings. That is a win. I don't know how you've turned this in to a moral dilemma, it's a game designed to win money. Do you blame a footballer for scoring a goal and not just sharing the draw? Should poker players always fold to prevent anyone potentially losing money? Why do you treat this game any different to those?
    How mature. Ready to spit out your pacifier yet? When footballers draw both teams do not lose. That is where your analogy is flawed. Also ,although winning is important, most impartial viewers of would rather watch a beautiful match than seeing any team's victory in particular- which shows the competition, the fight, is just a means to an end. The fans want to see a beautiful game. Golden-balls is a game that could drastically change someone's life. Enough money to put a daughter through private school, get a parent foreign medical treatment. In this game, I think stealing is akin to stealing in real life.

    And the reason you did not comment on the bits you crossed out is because you did not have the knowledge to refute it. Admit it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    The game is... A GAME. The objective of the game is to win the money.

    I think you've got yourself royally confused over the word 'steal'. You're taking this 'steal' play in the game to actually be on par with an act of theft, where you take something that doesn't belong to you. It is not, the other player doesn't own the money in this game, the object is to win the game and the steal option is simply a play. It's not actual theft...

    Would you object if the 'steal' option was named 'keep'?

    Keep or split - which do you choose?
    Yes. I know it is a game, but so is life. LIFE IS A GAME. IN THe same way that winning 50k in a game show is just A GAME. DOESnt mean it cant drastically change your LIFE THOUGH.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    1 - Because it ends up absolutely suboptimal. Absolutely anyone can see this. Have you done any simple game theory? This seems to be what you're trying to apply, but given it works on assuming dominating strategies being chosen, you will never win anything.

    2 - Deep, yo.

    3 - No. Assuming they are 'rational', nobody wins. Rationality suggests that a win (of some sort) is produced by a split, whilst there is a chance of no win by choosing steal. To some extent this depends on your definition of win, but hardly.

    4 - Because relying on one player is nonsense! Look at any time people have tested this. Seriously.

    5 - You're skipping any kind of belief in an opponent who can think, which makes the analysis ludicrously simplistic., and basically, not worth a damn.
    1) I have at no point discussed or mentioned game theory. It is not relevant to this. Frankly when it comes down to it there is only two options the opponent can pick, so regardless of what the 'dominating strategy' might be, I'd be best suited to choose steel whether it was the rational option or not.

    2) Also true.

    3) Have you ever watched the game show? Does everyone make the same choice? Well there you go then, your presumptions are entirely wrong in reality.

    4) The question is what would an individual do. You play the game once, you get to the end, you have the option to split or steal. It doesn't matter what anyone else does to the individual in question, other than the person sat opposite. There is no combination where my choice to steal does me any harm. I'm starting to doubt you've even seen the game...

    5) This seems to be completely unrelated to point 5, evidently in a veiled attempt to avoid accepting the flaw in your previous statement.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    How mature. Ready to spit out your pacifier yet? When footballers draw both teams do not lose. That is where your analogy is flawed. Also ,although winning is important, football is played with the aim of having beautiful game being more interesting than any team's victory in particular. This is a game that could drastically change someone's life. Enough money to put a daughter through private school. it is a cruel game at best and stealing definitely is stealing.
    Pacifier? Ugh, why didn't you say you were American earlier, I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time trying to explain this

    You're responses are rapidly degrading. The main aim of football is to win, period. Yes a draw can be seen as middle ground in football, but the difference here is that in the game outlined initially has two absolute set options. If you choose to split alongside the opponent you get half the winnings, there is absolutely no logical reason to not choose the steal option and take all the winnings with absolutely 0 additional risk. If your objective is to win money, then this is the logical choice.

    "Stealing definitely is stealing." Are you simply unable to form coherent thought? It's not stealing, as neither player owns it. It's simply called stealing to sensationalise the game. You've taken some moral exception to the use of the word, when in reality the word 'keep' or 'don't share' would mean the exact same thing in this context.

    (Original post by Blutooth)
    Yes. I know it is a game, but so is life. LIFE IS A GAME. IN THe same way that winning 50k in a game show is just A GAME. DOESnt mean it cant drastically change your LIFE THOUGH.
    Life is a game with two simplistic options and an exact set of consequences? Good to know.

    (Original post by Blutooth)
    And the reason you did not comment on the bits you crossed out is because you did not have the knowledge to refute it. Admit it.
    Noticed your edit stuck on the end there...

    The crossed out chunk of text was utter drivel of no relevance to this game or the question at hand. You're giving me the impression that you're not the brightest spark, so I'm really growing bored of this conversation. You're offering nothing new that is actually relevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Split.

    I would rather leave with nothing than be the person who steals.

    Besides which many people justify steal by having the option "steal everything" as preferable to "get half, your fair share". I don't see it that way, I don't want to steal everything, I would rather get my fair share. That's how I operate the rest of my life. On being fair, rather than getting all I can out of other people because they're "probably just as selfish". Honestly, that attitude is what makes the world bad.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    I've crossed out the bits with no relevance whatsoever to the question at hand. You're seriously reaching.

    No I don't regard a steal-steal outcome as winning, however if I change my option to split then I have a split-steal outcome which is equally not winning. No benefit in splitting, whereas by stealing if the opponent does choose split, I double my winnings. That is a win. I don't know how you've turned this in to a moral dilemma, it's a game designed to win money. Do you blame a footballer for scoring a goal and not just sharing the draw? Should poker players always fold to prevent anyone potentially losing money? Why do you treat this game any different to those?
    Winning using the "steal" option is a bit like becoming successful as a band after selling out. It's certainly not a victory in any moral sense. If you put two people who thought like me in a room, we'd both win a cash prize and look like pretty sound blokes in the process.

    Split Option) 50% chance of victory (cash prize = x), 100% chance of proving your integrity in front of millions of viewers.
    Steal Option) 50% chance of victory (cash prize = 2x), 100% chance of showing you prefer to take a selfish risk and manipulate in order to win.

    If you decide to factor in the value of sticking to inherently decent principles, the Split option always produces a positive result of some kind on your life and the Steal option always produces a negative one. Thus Split is guaranteed profit and Steal is merely a gamble. When there's so much at stake it becomes more than just a game and I think it's fair to let your choice be influenced by more than just average cash payout. Maybe it would be different if you weren't on tv in front of everyone you know. I don't know about you but I think a lot of the "steal" people left a very bad impression.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Pacifier? Ugh, why didn't you say you were American earlier, I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time trying to explain this

    I am British but well-travelled.


    You're responses are rapidly degrading. The main aim of football is to win, period. Yes a draw can be seen as middle ground in football, but the difference here is that in the game outlined initially has two absolute set options. If you choose to split alongside the opponent you get half the winnings, there is absolutely no logical reason to not choose the steal option and take all the winnings with absolutely 0 additional risk. If your objective is to win money, then this is the logical choice.

    Yes, I agree. But the label game does not help. In football, there is a degree of skill attached to the playing, which makes a team a deserving winner. What skill is there in stealing lmao?


    "Stealing definitely is stealing." Are you simply unable to form coherent thought? It's not stealing, as neither player owns it. It's simply called stealing to sensationalise the game. You've taken some moral exception to the use of the word, when in reality the word 'keep' or 'don't share' would mean the exact same thing in this context.



    Life is a game with two simplistic options and an exact set of consequences? Good to know.

    YOu misunderstand me entirely, I have not taken exception to the word stealing. My problem is with the word game? Why do you think this game on a tv should have an elevated status above all the other "games" we play in life?

    Why is playing this game so different from- say if you could- stealing a car that was going to be given to someone as a surprise birthday present by some big blue-chip organisation? If you think harder (and I know this may be difficult) you will see that fundamentally, there is no difference in terms of utility, happiness. The only difference is in terms of legality.


    Noticed your edit stuck on the end there...

    The crossed out chunk of text was utter drivel of no relevance to this game or the question at hand. You're giving me the impression that you're not the brightest spark, so I'm really growing bored of this conversation. You're offering nothing new that is actually relevant.
    Sorry, won't get dragged down to that. I've been told never to argue with an idiot, cos they'll bring you down to their level and beat you there with experience. But, I must say you are limited.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.