Therocial quizz question - Page 2

what did floofy do to deserve so much of this

there was some study about this - it ends up being around 70/30

New idea: you are offering him money and you know if he doesn't accept it will go to charity. What you do NOT know is that the share you keep for yoruself (say 70%) your dick will magically shrink (the same %) that night and never return to normal. Kind of like George's shrinkage theory from the Seinfeld, only permanent. Would you still offer the same amount you selfish son of a bitch.

wtf goes on in ur head.

On January 26 2010 22:09 Floofy wrote: it could be anyone, you don't know who it is. Just a random american male or female. You don't see him, and he don't see you either. You cannot talk to him.

3 flaws
3 strikes
/thread

On January 27 2010 01:04 PoorUser wrote: there was some study about this - it ends up being around 70/30

.


The rational move in any single game is for the second person to take whatever is offered. (It's more than he came in with.) But in fact, most people reject offers of less than 30 percent of the total, punishing offers they perceive as unfair. Why?

The academic debate boils down to two competing explanations. On one hand, players might be strategically suppressing their self-interest, turning down cash now in the hope that if there are future games, the "proposer" will make better offers. On the other hand, players might simply be lashing out in anger....

[The researchers] took a "data truck" to a strip of bars on the South Side of Pittsburgh (where participants were "often at a level of intoxication that is greater than is ethical to induce" and also did controlled testing, in labs, of people randomly selected to get drunk.

The scholars were interested in drunkenness because intoxication, as other social-science experiments have shown, doesn't fuzz up judgment so much as cause the drinker to overly focus on the most prominent cue in his environment. If the long-term-strategy hypothesis were true, drunken players would be more inclined to accept any amount of cash. (Money on the table generates more-visceral responses than long-term goals do.) If the anger/revenge theory were true, however, drunken players would become less likely to accept low offers: raw anger would trump money-lust.

In both setups, drunken players were less likely than their sober peers to accept offers of less than 50 percent of the total. The finding suggests, the authors said, that the principal impulse driving subjects was a wish for revenge.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/magazine/ideas/2009/#d

i was gonna correct the spelling in the title but then i saw it was a floofy thread and realized that "therocial" has added value

nice work floofy keep it up

i'm a nice drunk i'd accept $25

what about this:

The money will be split between yourself and Floofy.

If you reject Floofys offer, he gets banned.
If you accept it, he makes daily threads about near-impossible challenges he has thought up, including but not limited to - Chess vs Him/Deep Blue, MSN Starcraft, Guitar Hero, 25c Starcraft games etc.

id say 10K is a 99% lock.

So optimal would b like i duno 6 - 7.5K but i would always ship 10K.

would be a pretty cool show to watch tho lol.. i bet NBC would do it, they love losing money.

On January 26 2010 23:17 exalted wrote: I KNEW FLOOFY MADE THIS JUST BY LOOKING AT THE TITLE

me too. About 1k posts ago I might have thought this was a Meal thread, but now I can tell the difference without opening it.

On January 27 2010 01:04 PoorUser wrote: there was some study about this - it ends up being around 70/30

it's gotta depend on the total amount. I mean, if they're haggling over $100, a lot of people would refuse even a really good offer just to be mean, or because they want to give it to charity. But if they're splitting 1 billion dollars, you could offer the other guy just 1% and he'd probably accept, because that's still a cool million dollars.

Out of 50k, I'd probably offer 10%. I think very few people would turn down 5k just to prove a point.

I love floofy threads
they are pretty much the only threads my non poker friends find funny

On January 27 2010 01:55 Silver)Z( wrote: Show nested quote + On January 27 2010 01:04 PoorUser wrote: there was some study about this - it ends up being around 70/30 . http://www.nytimes.com/projects/magazine/ideas/2009/#d

This is sick, thanks for the link. Dan Ariely does all kinds of ridiculous research like this, results are all pretty fascinating.

On January 27 2010 02:14 milkman wrote: id say 10K is a 99% lock. So optimal would b like i duno 6 - 7.5K but i would always ship 10K. would be a pretty cool show to watch tho lol.. i bet NBC would do it, they love losing money.

thats what i thought too. i'd ship 10k. doubt that most ppl would decline that offer.

please start blogging about your life.

On January 27 2010 01:04 PoorUser wrote: there was some study about this - it ends up being around 70/30

I think the percentages change greatly depending on the starting amount.

I mean for $100 I can see maybe a majority rejecting $30-40 and saying it all goes to charity.

But if it was $1,000,000 I can see nearly everyone accepting $50,000.

Therocially speaking (lol), since its a random person, my pick would be to know the average yearly income of the population of the country where the tv show takes place and choose the optimal amount i.e. a sum w/ enough importance compared to said income but at my advantage. Lets say the avg income is 30k, then id probably offer something around 15k out of 50, if the avg income is 100k (which is impossible nowadays) id offer 25k...

On January 27 2010 06:41 iop wrote: please start blogging about your life.

12-14k
id prefer to donate it to a charity i choose tho