That doesn’t really strike me as a good description of the given situation in the first place, but even so the reason why $1 would be likely to offend the other person is because he knows you’re keeping $999 for yourself. It’s not necessarily rational to think that way, a free dollar is still a free dollar after all, but that’s still how most people will see it.
e: and from a psychological standpoint it’s important to note the wording in the OP. BOTH people are given $1000, and then one person is given the responsibility of dividing it. This is going to be fundamentally different from “one person is given $1000 and the other is given the option to screw him over if he doesn’t share”, in the mind of the other person.
Right, but I don’t get where this idea of “keeping” comes from. It’s his money, not theirs. It’s not like the game says “Here’s some money for the two of you. Player 1, decide how it’s split.” The game is “Here, player 1, here’s some money. Try not to get fucked over by Player 2.”
You could as easily say that Player 2 has a duty to even accept $0 because society says it’s not nice to screw the other person over. After all, what’s the difference to Player 2? He gets no money either way. Isn’t that the same as saying “Here’s this bound person. Kick him, or don’t. Your call.”
So how come Player 2 gets to demand a lot of money for his token and it’s “fair” for Player 1 to give it to him? Why don’t people call player 2 a rat bastard for even thinking of playing the token?
I don’t have a problem with people valuing their token at something other than $1. It’s worth $5 to you? OK, I get that. What I don’t get is this notion that 50/50 is “fair”. How can that word even come into the conversation, let alone get a value of “50/50”?
That’s not really what the OP says at all, but even so it’s still missing the point. You can’t be idealistic about these things, you have to be cynical if you’re going to play the game. Deserve’s got noting to do with it. What’s fair has nothing to do with it. Your only goal as a player is to maximize your own realized profit, and if your offering $1 is likely to induce an irrational response, then you need to take this into account when you consider your offer. The winner is guy with the most cash, not the guy who gets to brag about what a great offer he made and what an idiot his opponent was for turning it down.
Suppose the benefactor had said “You can give that drunk under the tree some of the money if you want. Either way, by the way, if he happens to call you a fascist asshole, the whole deal is off.” Is there still a “fairness” obligation to give the third party $500? If not, isn’t there some continuum between the two cases? And if so, wouldn’t you have a similar “fairness obligation” to split 3 ways, including the other drunk too inebriated to call you an asshole?
I know there are people who will reject a split where they get less than half, but I don’t know what the percentages look like. I make a few assumptions:
There are some people who will reject any split in which they get less than 50% out of a sense (irrational or not) of fairness.
The proportion of people who will accept less than 50/50 is monatonically decreasing as the split gets more in my favor.
Everyone will accept a 50/50 split.
It’s easy to see that a slight increase is not likely to work out in my favor. It’s very difficult to see where, along the continuum from 50/50 to 100-a bit/a bit, my expected value might get better than the $500 I’m assured if I offer 50/50, so the optimal strategy is to offer the even split.
I’d accept the $100/900 split readily. Less than that and I think it’d start to matter whether I got to look the other guy in the eye when I told him to go fuck himself.
I agree that the absolute amount matters more than the fraction, though. I’d quickly accept $1000 out of a million, but I’d laugh right in the face of the guy who offers me the dime out of his $100.
That’s not irrational at all. The monkey learned that the market value of his trick is worth more than he’s being paid.
If I’m doing a job, and find out that my coworker (who does the same job as me, just as well) is getting more money, it’s perfectly rational for me to quit unless I’m given a raise. New information changes things.
I’m neither an idealist or a hippy, though I’m hopeless in at least four different senses. That said, I voted for the 50/50 split; it seems most likely to avoid the wrath of a bullheaded nitwit.
Anyway, I’m bigger than most of my friends, so I can always take it from him later.
Righto. I’m no We Are The World type. It really boils down to me being as close to certain as I can get that a randomly chosen guy will take 50/50. The bigger my share gets, the less likely I believe the other person is to accept. I’m a bit of a gambler, so I could see myself going for a 65/35 split, but I would acknowledge I was taking a risk. 50/50 sounds like zero risk, free money to me.
As the first person, I would offer a 50/50 split. As the second person, I would probably accept whatever they offered, though I’d probably also kick them in the shin if they offered less than $500.
As First Person, I would offer an even split. As Second Person, I would reject anything but. Anything other than an even split is a “fuck you” to Second Person; First Person is being greedy simply because he thinks he can be, not because of any worth he has or deed he’s done, but by an arbitrary condition of a game designed to mess with people.
$499 isn’t remotely near enough money for me to put up with that shit. Five hundred isn’t either, but as it represents First Person’s effort to be decent and not work the angle, I’ll accept. Anything less, and hell with him.
It really comes down to risk aversion. For $1000 I’d chance a 90/10 proposal, because it don’t believe 50/50 will work as much as twice as often. $100 is still money, and I believe opponent would accept often enough to turn a slightly greater profit on average. If it was $1,000,000 instead I’d go 50/50 in a heartbeat, even though my edge is significantly greater, because to me it isn’t worth potentially losing $500,000 if opponent decides to be a total dickbag.
I find it interesting that people are characterizing a Second Person who rejects the deal as a “bullheaded nitwit” or “total dickbag,” when they (as FP) are proposing to game him by retaining more than an even split. You’re contemplating being greedy, thinking of the best way to take advantage of a stupid situation, and he’s (or I’m, as the case may be) a jerk for not putting up with your game?
Well I may have overstated that, but we both got pretty lucky getting offered some free money. As it happened I got a bit luckier than my opponent, being offered the most favorable of the two situations. Taking advantage of that fact may be a little bit cynical, but actually turning down a non-trivial chunk of change and causing an offer of $1000 free dollars to be withdrawn purely to make some silly grandstand about fairness and principles is just going above and beyond. I would consider myself to have the moral highground in the aftermath of such a scenario.
I’d offer 500/500. If I were to offer 400/600 I would not only run the risk of the other person saying no, but I would feel like a jerk. Feeling like a jerk isn’t worth $100 to me.
If I were the second person, I’d turn down anything less than an even split. The stakes aren’t high enough for me to accept an uneven deal.
Forgot to mention how much I’d accept: Given my current situation… well, I’m poor. I’d accept as little as $25, to be honest. A few months ago when things were going good I wouldn’t have accepted anything less than $100.
It is interesting that something that you would expect to be a simple thought experiment would bring out so many words judging character and motives on both sides of the equation. Thinking about it, I don’t think “fair” is the right word for why so many people would offer 50%; I think the better word would be “cautious.” You’re not offering it because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s the most likely to be accepted, which gets YOU the maximum amount of money - it’s self-interest, not altruism.
So the money belongs to the first person. The second has no claim whatsoever to this money. What’s it to him how much it is? What’s the difference if I’m giving you 50% vs. 0.05%? If it’s $10, it’s $10. Why would anyone compare it to how much the first guy is taking? That makes no sense.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement here, MOL. I’m not arguing for one percentage or the other. I’m just saying that this idea that 50/50 is special is ludicrous. This notion that 50/50 is the only “fair” number, like below, is silly.
You guys are all saying you’ll offer 50/50 because you might, just might, run into a guy that wants to screw you instead of taking the money. But what you haven’t explained is why you think that’ll stop if you give him 50%.
You offer 30%, he says no.
35%? No.
40%? No.
45%? No.
Now here’s the kicker. What makes you think that if you say 50%, that he’ll change his mind? Moreover, why does your conscience suddenly resolve itself when you offer 50%? Why aren’t you guilted into offering 55%? What would you do if the guy said, staight out, that he’s not taking anything less that 60%?
Ultimately, you can never be sure that the other guy will agree to your offer. Hell, he might demand 95% and refuse anything less. So then you have to figure out “What would most people do?” and somehow you’re coming up with 50/50. I’m asking why. We know it’s less than that (i.e. most will take 40%) so where is this idea of “fairness” coming from? We’ve got people saying “it’s the fairest split” and others saying it’s “the only true option”.
Who says “fair” is 50% and not 40% or 60%? Where is that written?
No way. 99% and 50% would have essentially identical acceptance rates. Remember, this isn’t haggling, it’s one offer and if you decline the offer goes away. The only reason to turn down a proposal is if you feel the amount offered is sufficiently trivial to be downright insulting. No one is going to that react negatively to being offered 50%.
e:
Really? You don’t see where that perception comes from? It’s because 50/50 means both parties get the same amount.
