Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: The Ultimatum Game
by
The Script
on 22/04/2011, 00:05:32 UTC
Quote from: tomcollins on April 21, 2011, 06:02:10 PM
Quote from: Terpie on April 21, 2011, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: tomcollins on April 21, 2011, 05:57:34 PM
Quote from: Terpie on April 21, 2011, 05:54:43 PM

Any definition of rationality that only takes into account monetary incentives is completely flawed. Money is a means to some further ends, something that will satisfy some other human desire. If you're poor and starving, I'd imagine you would take any amount because you value your next meal over any chance to exact vengeance. On the other hand, if you have everything in the world, what's $10 over the chance to share your views on cooperation/vengeance with someone that just seemingly slighted you? The psychological satisfaction that results would be worth more than another $10 in your pocket.

I find spite to be irrational.  And I certainly wouldn't spend $10 to teach a lesson to some random stranger.

Getting satisfaction out of harming others is for sociopaths.

Without trying to be too morbid, if a psychopath murdered your entire family, then played this game with you, and offered you $1. You would accept it?

In that case, vengeance is at least deserved.  Someone not giving you something you have no claim to is not.


What about denying them something they have no claim to?  Why is their claim anymore legitimate than the second person?  The Game Owner gives the $5000 to both the people, but gives one of them the decision of distribution and the other a veto over the whole decision.  Neither has any "claim" on it or they both do.