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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would split every time. Greed is a horrible trait. Integrity is something dying out in the modern world and its a shame.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzPKspCj1i4

    Top comment made me laugh so much!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    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.
    Who gives a damn about "millions of viewers". It's a simple question split or steal. Why on earth would you give someone else the chance to take half if not all the money???? Because you look good on tv and leave a good impression??? Loooool
    It's best to leave with nothing than see someone take that money from you.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spocckka)
    Game theory says steal
    Game theory FTW!!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kurdabora)
    Who gives a damn about "millions of viewers". It's a simple question split or steal. Why on earth would you give someone else the chance to take half if not all the money???? Because you look good on tv and leave a good impression??? Loooool
    It's best to leave with nothing than see someone take that money from you.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Its best that someone leaves with the money so the money grabbing cooperation doesn't get to keep it. I'd rather have some money grabbing moron sitting opposite from me have the money and have some chance of getting half of it rather than a tv channel keeping their money.

    Ducking bourgeoisie!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    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.
    This will appear a bit disjointed as you haven't bothered to properly format your last post. Thanks for quoting Mr Twain, but try not to refer to me as an idiot when you can hardly form coherent sentences in half your posts...

    Being well travelled doesn't explain your use of American words, but never mind.

    There is no skill involved. But that works two ways, the opponent has done nothing to deserve it either. Why should I give the opponent, a random person who has done nothing, half the money? Why not take all the money, and if I feel the need to morally ratify myself I can always give it to someone in genuine need. Why do you think I should give half of it to this particular random stranger? It's a luck game after all. If someone bets on red in a casino and wins £100, should he give £50 of it to the person who bet on black? Seems no different than the split option.

    The game is entered in to with the object of winning money, both players are aware of that. I don't owe the opponent any favours, nor he me. The difference between this game show and stealing a car is that someone actually owns the car, be it a person or a company, so my actions are depriving them of their property. Hence theft. In this game show, the money goes to the winner, it doesn't belong to the opponent. If you're desperate to share the winnings, odds are there are people who will need it more than the one who happened by chance to be sitting across from you.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kurdabora)
    Who gives a damn about "millions of viewers". It's a simple question split or steal. Why on earth would you give someone else the chance to take half if not all the money???? Because you look good on tv and leave a good impression??? Loooool
    It's best to leave with nothing than see someone take that money from you.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because I don't put a price on my integrity. If I walk away with nothing I am no worse off than I was before I arrived, the cash prize is not essential to me. If I pick "Steal" I've been deliberately manipulative which is a betrayal of my principles, and that decision has no impact on my chance of winning, it only affects the size of the trophy.

    Don't underestimate "leaving a good impression". Being selfless in that situation speaks volumes about your character. I feel sorry for people who could take their opponent's potential half of the money without feeling any guilt, I consider that a moral failure.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    This will appear a bit disjointed as you haven't bothered to properly format your last post. Thanks for quoting Mr Twain, but try not to refer to me as an idiot when you can hardly form coherent sentences in half your posts...

    Being well travelled doesn't explain your use of American words, but never mind.
    I didn't know that words from the Oxford English Dictionary were American, but hey-ho what do I know?
    Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.
    You know Twain, very Good. let's try something Wilde. "People know the price of everything and the value of nothing". Yet surprisingly, you seem to understand neither the value behind co-operation, nor the cost of Nash equilibria.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    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.
    The game is to win cash. If you don't value the cash, then what's the point in playing.

    Frankly you sound like another person morally confused over the word 'steal'. It's not actual theft, you aren't taking something that belongs to the opponent, you're merely attempting to win the game. If they named it 'keep' it'd be just as accurate a description, although perhaps less enticing to the audience.

    Any logical person can see that to win the game (maximise profits) you should steal, so I don't see why any intelligent person would see this as a reflection on the player as a person. Those that leave a bad impression are the ones that lie through their teeth, make conceited stories and promises then jump up and down with joy on winning. That's a different matter.

    Ultimately I'll say the same to you as the last guy. Why should you give half the money to the random stranger sitting across from you? If you feel the need to do some good with it, then donate it to a charity or something, why on earth would you give it to Joe Bloggs who you don't know anything about? If you won the money in a different game like poker (which is all about bluffing), would you feel an inordinate need to share the winnings with your opponent afterwards? Why is that in any way different to this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Why should I give the opponent, a random person who has done nothing, half the money? Why not take all the money, and if I feel the need to morally ratify myself I can always give it to someone in genuine need. Why do you think I should give half of it to this particular random stranger?.
    Because someone going for the split option it is the only way for anyone to win money.

    Your choice is to be one of the people who enables the winning of money, or to decide to attempt to parasitise others' cooperative intentions.

    I can see however, that you've already decided the money is yours and being a cooperator is "giving away" the money. No wonder you don't get it. You are also a "random person who has done nothing". The only thing you can actually do to earn the money in any way is to be a cooperator (the only people who enable the winning of money). You would rather be a parasite.


    EDIT: You are right that "steal" isn't the right word. This supposes the money belongs to the other player. But "keep" isn't the right word either, as this supposes the money belongs to you. I suggest "Earn" and "Parasitise", "Contribute" or "Drain" - because that's what the choices ultimately are.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    I didn't know that words from the Oxford English Dictionary were American, but hey-ho what do I know?
    Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.
    You know Twain, very Good. let's try something Wilde. "People know the price of everything and the value of nothing". Yet surprisingly, you seem to understand neither the value behind co-operation, nor the cost of Nash equilibria.
    You ignored the bulk of my post, so I'll keep this brief.

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...glish/pacifier - Pacifier is a word in the English dictionary, but in the context in which you used it (as a dummy) it is most definitely American. The dictionary specifically says "North American a baby’s dummy."

    Everyone knows that Twain quote, it's been done to death by people like yourself who are losing arguments and need a quick way out.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    Because someone going for the split option it is the only way for anyone to win money.

    Your choice is to be one of the people who enables the winning of money, or to decide to attempt to parasitise others' cooperative intentions.

    I can see however, that you've already decided the money is yours and being a cooperator is "giving away" the money. No wonder you don't get it. You are also a "random person who has done nothing". The only thing you can actually do to earn the money in any way is to be a cooperator (the only people who enable the winning of money). You would rather be a parasite.


    EDIT: You are right that "steal" isn't the right word. This supposes the money belongs to the other player. But "keep" isn't the right word either, as this supposes the money belongs to you. I suggest "Earn" and "Parasitise" - because that's what the choices ultimately are.
    Don't get wrapped up in the moral crap people are trying to apply to a very simply question of what the logical choice is in this situation. You get one choice, and one alone. As does your opponent. You talk about splitting being enabling and all that, but what difference does that actually make to you as a player? In neither scenario does splitting help you more than stealing, but in one of the two scenarios stealing helps your more than splitting. If your aim so to win, it's common sense to steal. You aren't in the game to help your opponent win, the game is about making money so you are there to win! You've already had to lie and bluff your way through to get to that point in the first place after all, that's how the game works.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Don't get wrapped up in the moral crap people are trying to apply to a very simply question of what the logical choice is in this situation. You get one choice, and one alone. As does your opponent. You talk about splitting being enabling and all that, but what difference does that actually make to you as a player? In neither scenario does splitting help you more than stealing, but in one of the two scenarios stealing helps your more than splitting. If your aim so to win, it's common sense to steal. You aren't in the game to help your opponent win, the game is about making money so you are there to win! You've already had to lie and bluff your way through to get to that point in the first place after all, that's how the game works.
    Forgive me but I'd choose integrity over "winning" a gameshow any day.

    You can't deny what I've said. Splitters are the only ones who earn the money, stealers are parasites. I don't want to be a parasite when it comes to what I and my colleagues earn at work. Why would I want to be a parasite when it comes to what I and a stranger earn on a gameshow? Why is it more acceptable? Still real people, still real money, still the same principle.

    You choose to be a parasite, you can't switch off the moral consequences. If I were your friend or employer, I'd sure as hell judge you.

    It isn't "just a game" because the money exists in real life and has real life implications for you and the other player.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    The game is to win cash. If you don't value the cash, then what's the point in playing.

    Frankly you sound like another person morally confused over the word 'steal'. It's not actual theft, you aren't taking something that belongs to the opponent, you're merely attempting to win the game. If they named it 'keep' it'd be just as accurate a description, although perhaps less enticing to the audience.

    Any logical person can see that to win the game (maximise profits) you should steal, so I don't see why any intelligent person would see this as a reflection on the player as a person. Those that leave a bad impression are the ones that lie through their teeth, make conceited stories and promises then jump up and down with joy on winning. That's a different matter.

    Ultimately I'll say the same to you as the last guy. Why should you give half the money to the random stranger sitting across from you? If you feel the need to do some good with it, then donate it to a charity or something, why on earth would you give it to Joe Bloggs who you don't know anything about? If you won the money in a different game like poker (which is all about bluffing), would you feel an inordinate need to share the winnings with your opponent afterwards? Why is that in any way different to this?
    In terms of opportunity cost, you are directly depriving the other person of a large amount of money, guaranteed, if you pick steal. Hence it is the selfish choice. The game provides a valuable opportunity to prove you value selflessness more. They are in the exact same situation you are, they have equal right to the money.

    If I chose Split and they chose Steal, everyone could still respect my choice because I took a risk and I chose to resist cynicism. If we both choose Steal then we both just look silly.

    It's a life-changing sum of money and it's a life-changing moment. Those are the best moments to put your principles to the test. I have no right to that money, so if I am to win it I shall do it through selflessness.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    Forgive me but I'd choose integrity over "winning" a gameshow any day.

    You can't deny what I've said. Splitters are the only ones who earn the money, stealers are parasites. I don't want to be a parasite when it comes to what I and my colleagues earn at work. Why would I want to be a parasite when it comes to what I and a stranger earn on a gameshow? Why is it more acceptable? Still real people, still real money, still the same principle.

    You choose to be a parasite, you can't switch off the moral consequences. If I were your friend or employer, I'd sure as hell judge you.

    It isn't "just a game" because the money exists in real life and has real life implications for you and the other player.
    It's a GAME SHOW. Do you judge footballers for scoring a winning game? Do you judge a boxer for landing the winning blow? Do you judge someone who wins the lottery for denying you your winnings? It's no different.

    You've been taken in by the word 'steal' and the game show spin that attempts to make the process dramatic. There is no moral dilemma here, and there certainly isn't any theft. Consider these two alternatives;

    If they steal and you steal, you prevent them (a bad person by your reasoning) from 'stealing' the money. Good right?

    If they split and you steal, you have the money and can do what you want with it. If morally you feel obliged to share half of it, you can do. Alternatively you can give it to someone who actually needs it rather than the complete stranger across from you. Where's the downside in that? Good right?

    Frankly I'm amazed how people can't see the differentiation between stealing and playing the game show. Should people be judged for bluffing in poker? Or bluffing in cludo? Both games where to achieve the objective of winning you have to deceive your opponent. Don't forget that it is highly likely that the opponent you are playing has had to employ similarly deceitful tactics in order to reach the final in the first place.

    Also, thanks for the personal insult there at the end, but frankly I'm not fussed about your judgement. If I was your employer I'd judge you for not being able to take a practical decision. God forbid a business you work for takes advantage of an opportunity, lets just share out all the profits instead and see how far that gets us. Right?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    In terms of opportunity cost, you are directly depriving the other person of a large amount of money, guaranteed, if you pick steal. Hence it is the selfish choice. The game provides a valuable opportunity to prove you value selflessness more. They are in the exact same situation you are, they have equal right to the money.

    If I chose Split and they chose Steal, everyone could still respect my choice because I took a risk and I chose to resist cynicism. If we both choose Steal then we both just look silly.

    It's a life-changing sum of money and it's a life-changing moment. Those are the best moments to put your principles to the test. I have no right to that money, so if I am to win it I shall do it through selflessness.
    So is any person who wins any game that is played for money then. You are likewise being taken in by the dramatisation of the show and the word 'steal'. If a tennis player wins a competition and receives prize money, should he be judged for depriving the other tennis players in the tournament of the chance to win that money? Of course not, and it's absolutely no different in this scenario if you look at it pragmatically rather that buying in to the drama.

    As described in my post above, you can choose what you want to do with the money once you win it. Nobody is saying you have to keep it all if you don't want to. But once you win it it's your choice who you share it with.

    You talk about selflessness, but you seem to forget that in order to be on that show people have evidently decided that money is important or they wouldn't have applied in the first place. Frankly if they choose to steal and you split, I think plenty of people would join me in thinking you've been done for making an idiotic decision.

    Also, life changing sum of money? Have you ever watched the game? Most of the time it's hardly enough to be defined as life changing!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    It's a GAME SHOW. Do you judge footballers for scoring a winning game? Do you judge a boxer for landing the winning blow? Do you judge someone who wins the lottery for denying you your winnings? It's no different.

    You've been taken in by the word 'steal' and the game show spin that attempts to make the process dramatic. There is no moral dilemma here, and there certainly isn't any theft. Consider these two alternatives;

    If they steal and you steal, you prevent them (a bad person by your reasoning) from 'stealing' the money. Good right?

    If they split and you steal, you have the money and can do what you want with it. If morally you feel obliged to share half of it, you can do. Alternatively you can give it to someone who actually needs it rather than the complete stranger across from you. Where's the downside in that? Good right?

    Frankly I'm amazed how people can't see the differentiation between stealing and playing the game show. Should people be judged for bluffing in poker? Or bluffing in cludo? Both games where to achieve the objective of winning you have to deceive your opponent. Don't forget that it is highly likely that the opponent you are playing has had to employ similarly deceitful tactics in order to reach the final in the first place.

    Also, thanks for the personal insult there at the end, but frankly I'm not fussed about your judgement. If I was your employer I'd judge you for not being able to take a practical decision. God forbid a business you work for takes advantage of an opportunity, lets just share out all the profits instead and see how far that gets us. Right?
    I have not been "taken in" by the word "steal", stop repeating this, it isn't true and it adds nothing to what you have to say.

    You haven't, (presumably) cannot address my point about the splitters being the only ones who earn (and therefore do not deserve to have stolen from them) the money.

    I find it frankly ridiculous that you find spiting someone identical to yourself so that noone lives with any money as a "win" or "good" scenario.

    The only winning scenarios come from someone splitting. I can't repeat myself any more, I've made my position quite clear. I would choose not to be a parasite with real-life money. You would choose to be a parasite because it's "just a game show" and you prefer not to think of the decision in those terms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    If a tennis player wins a competition and receives prize money, should he be judged for depriving the other tennis players in the tournament of the chance to win that money? Of course not, and it's absolutely no different in this scenario
    Of course it's different. The tennis player has "earnt" that money by playing well. There is no way for them to cooperate to share the money with other players. Your "analogy" has nothing to do with making cooperative vs parasitic decisions, and is therefore not an analogy at all.

    An actually analagous scenario would be if two winning tennis doubles partners played "split or steal" after winning their prize money! I would still maintain parasitism as wrong. Presumably you would say it was perfectly fine/good for both of them to lose all the money, or one to steal from the other?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Gameshows like goldenball, deal or no deal, million pound drop, show the inherent greed in a society that has forsaken God.
    Money has became their new Messiah. Willing to steal and betray their fellow man in order to obtain some numbers in a bank account, they always fail to see what true wealth really is.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    So is any person who wins any game that is played for money then. You are likewise being taken in by the dramatisation of the show and the word 'steal'. If a tennis player wins a competition and receives prize money, should he be judged for depriving the other tennis players in the tournament of the chance to win that money? Of course not, and it's absolutely no different in this scenario if you look at it pragmatically rather that buying in to the drama.

    As described in my post above, you can choose what you want to do with the money once you win it. Nobody is saying you have to keep it all if you don't want to. But once you win it it's your choice who you share it with.

    You talk about selflessness, but you seem to forget that in order to be on that show people have evidently decided that money is important or they wouldn't have applied in the first place. Frankly if they choose to steal and you split, I think plenty of people would join me in thinking you've been done for making an idiotic decision.
    As Pigling said you need to stop assuming the word "steal" is having some sort of ~emotional consequence~ that is clouding my judgement. I'm talking about the actual implications of the choice.

    It's not just a game, it's an agreement. If you pick steal, you have directly stopped someone else from getting a large sum of money - as soon as you pick it, the other person, who wants the prize just as badly as you do and has an equal right to it, is unable to get any of it. That's a **** move, not game skill. Picking one ball instead of another isn't exactly a show of incredible prowess.

    Two people who put their principles ahead, accept that they have equal right to the money and split, always win. Two people who simply want the most cash always lose.

    Also, life changing sum of money? Have you ever watched the game? Most of the time it's hardly enough to be defined as life changing!
    It was a large amount in the examples I saw.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbmann)
    Gameshows like goldenball, deal or no deal, million pound drop, show the inherent greed in a society that has forsaken God.
    Money has became their new Messiah. Willing to steal and betray their fellow man in order to obtain some numbers in a bank account, they always fail to see what true wealth really is.
    Add divided to the list... this video shows such selfishness from Andrew. I really enjoyed watching this video though.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=P_rIsQxByNg
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

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