Prisoners Dilemma - Page 4

On April 21 2012 19:17 cariadon wrote: Do you give that speech to yourself every night before you cry youself to sleep ?

yes, i do actually.

On April 21 2012 18:49 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On April 21 2012 16:40 TalentedTom wrote: Capaneo, my perspective towards strangers is definatley different from yours. I have 100% no problem fking around with people I don't know, but always treat those I know very well (friend, business partner, etc..) For example, if I had to make a descion to save a car with 1 person that I know, friend family etc.. versus a bus of 20 strangers - its a 100% no brainer SNAP save the friend. I would lose sleep at night / be haunted at losing someone I know and having the power to stop it,the 20 random people have no where near the value. I think moving up in life at a strangers expense is 100% fine, but betraying those you know is very bad and unacceptable. In this case I would gladly 100% split the loot with a bunch of friends, but when it comes to strangers, I'd make the highest personal EV descion This makes sense. tbh I have never thought about it this way. So I see your point now. But IMO it would be very hard for others as your friend to think you will put them in a different category. And always watching their back to see if from your perspective, are they still in the friend zone with you, or they you are about to screw them over for your personal gain. My view is that I tread everyone the same and nicely and honestly, friends or stranger. So I am nice to every person out there trying to make as much friends as I can. But there are bad people in the world. And if you do sth bad to me, or you mess up somehow, I will remember it and I will come for you 10x worse. might not be right away, might be 2-5 years down the line. But you will pay a price sometime. And usually the price is very high. And the fact that Im nice to others, help in this matter too. Because people trust me, so when I say someone is an asshole or a sketchy guy, everyone knows I have a REALLY good reason, and they treat him as such.

I don't think that's very healthy. If someone does bad to me I try to either forget about it or instantly take my revenge otherwise you don't move on and are constantly bugged.

As for saving 1 friend over 20 strangers I think that is pretty interesting and I'm not sure how I would react, guess I'm glad it's an impossible scenario but I would have to factor a lot of things for example: are there children among the strangers? pregnat ladies? for some reason I like old people but I probably would let 100000's of them die for 1 child, since they already had their time to enjoy or fuck up life.

I don't think I see myself saving 1 friend over 10 people as a super easy decision, it's only a no brainer friend vs one stranger.

the 20 strangers vs 1 friend thing is interesting. what spitfiree was getting at (I think), that someone who is overly concerned with or empathic towards every random stranger situation coming to a point of being crippled is very true. I've thought for a while that there should be some kind of word for people who have an extreme sense of empathy, because such a condition can paralyze an individual in certain ways, especially in any kind of competitive environment (AKA the whole fucking world and everything that happens in it). IMO it is as much of a problematic condition as psychopathy (total lack of empathy) is.

I would probably insta choose the 20 strangers (barring mitigating factors such as the strangers are a bunch of politicians or something ;D) and suffer the personal consequences of it :/

On April 21 2012 12:33 NMcNasty wrote: Yeah its interesting and somewhat paradoxical that the smarter the two players in a game are, the less their combined EV would be. For any game or system that is adding a variable amount of value to the participants, two geniuses should be able to exploit that system better than two idiots.

just browsing thru the thread I wanted to point out that the situation isn't exactly uncommon and certainly isn'tr restricted to this particular game, for instance the whole economy works this way on a business vs business level. its like the biggest reason that cartels and other types of monopolization and collusion in business happens. What I mean by this is that if every firm in the market is making the most clearly +EV decision for themselves by allocating capital towards cost-saving new infrastructure, the overall return on investment % for businesses in that market will drop, and collectively these firm's decisions are actually -EV in this way

@Locoo, I follow the Israelis: Never to forget, never to forgive.

@Spitfiree: It doesn't take any effort to treat others fair. Just don't lie and don't screw people over. Why do you think that takes effort?

In the game I would choose split if I say I would choose split, I would steal and split later if I say so. (wouldn't split on the show like the dude). And if someone like that girl screw me over. She probably needed the money badly. 100K is not really life changing money anyways. The fact you are screwing your reputation on National TV for 100k means you are very desperate person.

Having said that I would NOT forgive or forget what she did. Even 10 years down the line. I am not going to go after her. But if our path happens to cross each other even if she is down in the worse condition. I would still go after her 10x and it would be lotta fun.

I have to agree with TT's and Daut point of view. It's a game and you are playing by the rules, the sad part is that you can't be sure that the other guy isn't trying to screw you over so you must look after yourself. If you were playing with someone you knew won't screw you over then sure but you can never be 100% trusting.

That said I'm the type of guy who would always try and split the money so everybodys happy, like if the other guy choose split I would 100% give half the money to him/her after the show unless I need it badly.

I'm confused, how did they both end up choosing split after all that nonsense? And what was the point of hustling him if he was going to choose split anyway? Because if he pisses the bald dude off and he chooses steal, then he actually becomes the victor does he not? All he did was increase the odds at which the bald guy chooses steal so that they both get fucked.

On April 21 2012 21:18 NewbSaibot wrote: I'm confused, how did they both end up choosing split after all that nonsense? And what was the point of hustling him if he was going to choose split anyway? Because if he pisses the bald dude off and he chooses steal, then he actually becomes the victor does he not? All he did was increase the odds at which the bald guy chooses steal so that they both get fucked.

If he convinces the dude that he's going to steal then there is no EV in choosing steal.

On April 21 2012 20:05 locoo wrote: Show nested quote + On April 21 2012 18:49 capaneo wrote:   On April 21 2012 16:40 TalentedTom wrote: Capaneo, my perspective towards strangers is definatley different from yours. I have 100% no problem fking around with people I don't know, but always treat those I know very well (friend, business partner, etc..) For example, if I had to make a descion to save a car with 1 person that I know, friend family etc.. versus a bus of 20 strangers - its a 100% no brainer SNAP save the friend. I would lose sleep at night / be haunted at losing someone I know and having the power to stop it,the 20 random people have no where near the value. I think moving up in life at a strangers expense is 100% fine, but betraying those you know is very bad and unacceptable. In this case I would gladly 100% split the loot with a bunch of friends, but when it comes to strangers, I'd make the highest personal EV descion This makes sense. tbh I have never thought about it this way. So I see your point now. But IMO it would be very hard for others as your friend to think you will put them in a different category. And always watching their back to see if from your perspective, are they still in the friend zone with you, or they you are about to screw them over for your personal gain. My view is that I tread everyone the same and nicely and honestly, friends or stranger. So I am nice to every person out there trying to make as much friends as I can. But there are bad people in the world. And if you do sth bad to me, or you mess up somehow, I will remember it and I will come for you 10x worse. might not be right away, might be 2-5 years down the line. But you will pay a price sometime. And usually the price is very high. And the fact that Im nice to others, help in this matter too. Because people trust me, so when I say someone is an asshole or a sketchy guy, everyone knows I have a REALLY good reason, and they treat him as such. for some reason I like old people but I probably would let 100000's of them die for 1 child, since they already had their time to enjoy or fuck up life.

i dont know who you consider old but from evolutionary perspective kids are far more easier to replace ie less valueable

On April 21 2012 20:59 locoo wrote: I have to agree with TT's and Daut point of view. It's a game and you are playing by the rules, the sad part is that you can't be sure that the other guy isn't trying to screw you over so you must look after yourself. If you were playing with someone you knew won't screw you over then sure but you can never be 100% trusting. That said I'm the type of guy who would always try and split the money so everybodys happy, like if the other guy choose split I would 100% give half the money to him/her after the show unless I need it badly.

You can not screw people over with the justification that "this is just a game", or these are different class of people since I don't know them personally.

Im going to make a very extreme and over the top example:

German soldiers working in concentration camps were also treating the matter as "a job". As if it is not part of their real life. Many of them had family, kids and no personal problem with Jews. So to justify their actions they would say "I just have orders from above". Then they would go to their family pretending that it is only a job and has nothing to do with their lives. And the truth of the matter is that they are 100% logically correct.
So by your standards none of those guys are responsible for their actions during service (before WWII rules of the military "game" says that you have to obey ALL orders)

Question is not only if they are "correct", but are they also "right"


I understand Toms point about friends and non-friends. It is logical and correct. But i personally do not agree with his hypothesis. I just don't think it is right.

Well that was a pretty poor example and had absolutely nothing to do wih the game. Maybe if the jews could burn the soldier too with some kind of magic spell...

A much more accurate yet still pretty extreme example would be in the midst of war two inexperienced soldiers meet, guns pointing towards the other and ready to shoot, they could both just lower their weapons and they would both walk away alive but how can you know the other one is going to do the same as you?

the example is an extreme case of having different rules for different things and times in your life. You can not be torturing prisoners at work and then be a great friend and family person in your personal time.

You can not be a an evil person from 9 to 5, even if it is required from you as part of your job and a great dad at home.

We are talking about a game from a TV show and you are bringing the holocaust to the debate, be reasonable both scenarios are nothing alike.

The thing here is that you don't know which kind of person the other contestant is. And even if you know 100% that he is an honest person he could still screw you over if he doesn't believe you are. The only time where you could comfortably split would be with a very naive person who thinks people aren't shitty especially towards strangers and especially concerning money.

On April 22 2012 00:16 locoo wrote: We are talking about a game from a TV show and you are bringing the holocaust to the debate, be reasonable both scenarios are nothing alike.

I was not talking about the game. I was talking about Tom's comment that he has different rules for different group of people.

And in my torture example I was actually talking about US soldiers torturing detainees. Which is a legal and common (used to be) practice in USA.

Answer this, would you think its OK to hang out with soldiers who water-boarded detainees?

According to Daut and Tom's logic which you agree with its perfectly OK. Different rules for when you are at work dealing with prisoners, specially under order from your commanders.

On April 22 2012 00:21 locoo wrote: The thing here is that you don't know which kind of person the other contestant is. And even if you know 100% that he is an honest person he could still screw you over if he doesn't believe you are. The only time where you could comfortably split would be with a very naive person who thinks people aren't shitty especially towards strangers and especially concerning money.

According to this then you also don't know, the detainees might be AlQaida leaders and really bad people.

IMO some stuff are just wrong. No matter what the law says, no matter who the other person is and what games you are playing or what the situation is. Back stabbing and water boarding are both in that same category.

+ Show Spoiler +

i dont think thats bs, ofc u cant just be a nice guy and let ppl exploit you, but Im quite sure one is happier when he treats people with respect and empathy. That probably doesnt apply to competitive environments tho

+ Show Spoiler +

I wasn't talking about what TT said, just the game. Personally I go with treat others how you would like to be treated, but I'm pretty sure not even half the world or even 1/3rd believes or follows that rule, and also fwiw I consider myself to be pretty naive and exploitable.

There is 2 possible cases.

Other guy stole: tbh you didn't really loose anything here by splitting.... instead of looking like a jackass with no honor in front of thousands of people on TV, you look like more of an honorable person that keeps his word. You would not have won money anyways. Anyways i rather have one happy person than 2 unhappy persons.

Other guy splitted: Here it all comes down to your moral values. If money is so important to you that you're fine with betraying someone and breaking your words/honor in front of a lot of people on TV, well go ahead, but i know i would feel horribly bad of doing something like this, especially once i saw other person picked split.


I think the problem here is you guys are confusing 2 things: Lying in a game where the game is about lying, such as werewolf, and doing a pact with another player in a game to increase both of your EVs, but breaking your word and not respect the pact to steal the other person's EV. Its the same as if i told someone "hey lets share profits in the tourney to reduce our variance" and i actually don't pay him back if i win saying "its just a game trolololo, never trust poker players, you got bluffed!". In both case you do a pact to increase both players's EV (or reduce variance in the case of the poker game) and you don't respect your pact to increase your own EV even more.

Problem Floofy is that in both cases you are just reacting, he has all the power, you can't let that happen in the first place, if he comes up with "I'll steal no matter what" and you aren't 100% sure he will give you 50% after the show you come back with I will steal too and fuck you, your choice to fuck everything up, not mine.

I like to think of new people coming in to threads such as this one, reading the first page, skipping the middle pages and then reading the last (current) page. I love game shows...dum de dum...holocaust...what in the fu...

On April 22 2012 01:01 Floofy wrote: There is 2 possible cases. Other guy stole: tbh you didn't really loose anything here by splitting.... instead of looking like a jackass with no honor in front of thousands of people on TV, you look like more of an honorable person that keeps his word. You would not have won money anyways. Anyways i rather have one happy person than 2 unhappy persons. Other guy splitted: Here it all comes down to your moral values. If money is so important to you that you're fine with betraying someone and breaking your words/honor in front of a lot of people on TV, well go ahead, but i know i would feel horribly bad of doing something like this, especially once i saw other person picked split. I think the problem here is you guys are confusing 2 things: Lying in a game where the game is about lying, such as werewolf, and doing a pact with another player in a game to increase both of your EVs, but breaking your word and not respect the pact to steal the other person's EV. Its the same as if i told someone "hey lets share profits in the tourney to reduce our variance" and i actually don't pay him back if i win saying "its just a game trolololo, never trust poker players, you got bluffed!". In both case you do a pact to increase both players's EV (or reduce variance in the case of the poker game) and you don't respect your pact to increase your own EV even more.

I really don't understand this at all. Games like poker, survivor, mafia are all made for lying to each other. If you lie well and make promises and break them at the right time that is excellent strategical play. For this game I really don't see anything different. There's two balls and the goal is to manipulate your opponent into picking something you want him to pick. These are games that are meant to be played like that and you are confusing them with real life. If you are bluffing a fish and you tell him you have it, that's all part of poker. Your opponent isn't just going to take your word for it because he knows it is part of the game. There is level upon level upon level in situations like that and everyone understands that it is strategy. Even in a childrens game like risk you form pacts and backstab your partner at the right time. These are games and nobody should be applying any of that in real life.

Normally in games like these you aren't allowed to bring factors outside of the game into play. If you promise you will steal and split it (outside of the game) you are treading a very dangerous moral line in case you intend on keeping everything to yourself. For example in survivor you are absolutely not allowed to make promises from outside of the game such as "I'll buy you a house". Promising someone you will pick X or Y and lying about it, is entirely within the setting of the game, though.