POLL: The Ultimatum Game

50 : 50, the only thing fair...

 

I would always give half but would accept less, as long as it is not by too much.

 

How come we aren't allowed to select more than $50, and aren't allowed to accept less than $1?

I selected $50; $1, but I would give more; less depending on the circumstances.

 

Your both equals in the game, so split it equally, simple stuff

 

First off it isnt very much money, if it had been counted in the thousands of dollars I might have been willing to accept a lower percentage. Perhaps, and not by much. I would mostly have been so upset for the bastard not offering my half that I would prioritise hurting him instead of gaining myself.

 

I am surprised by the number of people who said " If I don't get half, then neither of us get anything."

 

because it's human pride and ideas of fairness.

It's logical really. if you observe people

 

I went like this. $50 for her if I won and $40 for me if she won. I figuered if she won then of course she desreved the extra Ten. Luck was smiling on her.

 

A little is better than nothing, why bother screwing the other person up when you can both get some cash. Even one dollar is something, which is better than nothing

 

I have a sortof example:

I bought Morrowind for £35 but i didn't like it. A friend of mine wanted it. I asked if he wanted it for £20. He said okay but then also said he'd give me £25 for it. As much as it would have been nice to get the extra £5, i took £20 it was a decent 'friend' price.
But then, if i declined, i'd have still been £35 down.

Hmm, don't entirely know where i'm going with this. Let's just say i made the deal fairly fair. He payed just over half.

 

I think the amount in question [total $100] makes it somewhat easier to say that getting a little for nothing is cool even if someone else gets more.

However, had the amounts been larger, I think it would be harder if you thought you were being stitched up.

Also of course it depends if the "partner" is a relationship partner or a business partner, or even a partner only for the purpose of the game.

Interesting, but as I say, the amount involved made it easy to be altruistic and not gready. I don't need $100. Had the amount in question been $100k on the other hand, then I might not have been happy with a buck!

 

this has been done in my family for ages, or a variant of it.

When siblings have to split a cake, one split and the other one chooses first. That way it'd be as even as possible if they both want a lot of cake

 

Personally, I agree with Joaquin - that had the amount been larger I would have accepted a worse cut as I would have needed the money. I can pass a few bucks to "punish" a partner for unfairness.

Incidentally, I chose $20 as my limit for accepting - $40-$50, I'm cool with, $20 - $40, I'd be angry but then again, free money's always good - below $20 I would want to get even with the guy too much.

 

I said 50/50, here's why.

1) No matter the amount of money, I realize before we even toss, that this chance occurance of me getting offered this situation was just that - chance. I don't loose anything. I either gain something or nothing. That's fine with me, as long as I don't loose anything. I don't considered not getting the money as loosing it - because I never had it in the first place to loose.

2) With that said, I'd make this known to my partner. That I will do it 50/50 and no other way. Because that is fair.

3) If my partner won the toss, thought I was bluffing, or just got greedy, and decided to offer anything under 50/50, boy would he be in for a jolt. I would decline. I can hear it now:

"You idiot! I offered you $30. Isn't that better than nothing?"

To which I would reply. "And I promised you $50. Wasn't that better than nothing?"



[Unfortunately, there is no negotiating, so you are unable to tell your partner what you would accept before he makes his split offer - BTA]

[ January 31, 2003, 04:38: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

I'd offer 50/50. I'd accept anything (i.e. $0). If I accept $0, and my partner gets $100, I've been put at no disadvantage, and have no cause for "punishing" them.

I was actually required to complete a similar exercise in my first semester of university, while taking a compulsory course named (very vaguely) "Communication Skills". The class of eight or so people was split into two equal groups. A grid was drawn up on the whiteboard, and it was explained to us that each "turn", a member from alternating teams was allowed to draw a mark on the grid. If a team produced a solid line that crossed the grid (i.e. filled grid points in between opposite sides), they were rewarded with some chocolate. You could block your "opposing" team's progress by placing a dot in front of their growing line. The only other rule was: no communication with the other group.

Well, my team made it about half way across the grid when the opposing team, for no apparent reason, stopped drawing their line briefly to block ours. This caused argument within my team - some wanted to block back, some wanted to just start again (not many of us wanted to just start again, but some of us thought it important to indicate that we saw no need to compete). (As a side note, when we finally did decide not to block the other team, the game was stopped, and we were all given chocolate... some stories do have a happy ending )

Anyway, I think I learned a valuable lesson that day... and it had less to do with communication, and more to do with human nature. When people are put in situations that hold no inherent need for competitive behaviour, sometimes they compete anyway.