Do you have a male or female brain?

[Mehen]

I don't think I'll ever be able to win with this damn $100 hamburger situation

[Umfriend]

Let's see... All of a sudden, there is $50 there, and we are the only ones that know of it. Why should you get a bigger part? But along the same lines, why should I get a bigger part? It seems logical to me to divide amongst all the people that know about it.

So, if you and one other are in a room and a 3rd person hands you $50 for no reason, no conditions. Do you give $25 to the other? He knows about it after all..... Would you be pissed if he got $50 and gave you nothing?

Now if the amount at stake was say £5,000 then my logic may well be different, but here the potential material loss is much higher. Although in this case, the amount is such that I would want to absolutely minimise the risk of refusal (and not maximise my gain), and so would no doubt still end up at 50%.

I can understand $1 is probably little to surrender for vengenace. But indeed, if you were offered $1,000 so that the other could get $4,000, would you waste $1,000 out of envy?

No. Almost nobody would refuse to get exactly half, and the probability of people refusing the trade wouldn't fall a lot in absolute numbers the higher their share is, after the halfway point.

But then, it is not about minimising probability of failure at all. What you are describing is in fact a maximisation of expected pay-off. That is very economic behaviour.

To my mind, what is being taken into account (safe for the egoistic motive of "feel-good" that some display here) is the anticipated joy the participant expects the other party to obtain from effecting his/her envy against the participant. $1 is, many expect, a low price for the hapiness of spite. $25 lowers the probability of arousing envy and raises the cost of effecting envy.

So the question becomes, in the ultimatum game, when or up to what price would you allow to let your spitefull half to take control and refuse the ultimatum causing the other party to gain nothing, just to satisfy your own envy...?

[KvHagedorn]

The Ultimate Game is gambling, pure and simple. It's not about economics nearly so much as it is about psychology and power. Now, if I knew that the person I was going to make the offer to was a dweeb with no self-confidence, I might be more likely to make a lowball offer.. but then again, this person might have a golden opportunity for passive payback. It's hard to judge. Of course you want the most you can get, and it is seen as a male trait to be a competitive risk-taker, but being an open-faced ****ole rarely gets people far in life. If you short changed a coworker like this and your car broke down, and this was the only person you could call for the favor of picking you up and helping you, how much more likely is he going to be willing to help the fair person rather than the greedy jerk? Forget economics and study diplomacy.

Now, your situation of someone walking into the room and just handing you $50 is totally different. There is no implied need for splitting this money at all. This might be your dad sending you a check to help defray some expense. It's YOUR money!

[VJ]

So, if you and one other are in a room and a 3rd person hands you $50 for no reason, no conditions. Do you give $25 to the other? He knows about it after all..... Would you be pissed if he got $50 and gave you nothing?

Not if you put it like that.
But the test says that the money is to be divided, in a division chosen by one of th receiving parties.

So the situations are different.

Jörg

[az]

I agree with KvH. I think I might refuse 1000$/49000$, but I wouldn't refuse 1000000/49000000.

[cjolley]

Male brain, female ON brain.

[az]

Well, if it's the thought that counts, there are females on my mind, too

[Umfriend]

Now, your situation of someone walking into the room and just handing you $50 is totally different. There is no implied need for splitting this money at all. This might be your dad sending you a check to help defray some expense. It's YOUR money!

OK, a tad different then: Someone walks into the room, a third person is there. You are given $50 and are told you need to give the third person some of it. How much do you give?

I am interested, suppose you are the third person in the Ultimatum game. Do you refuse:
Case a - $49/$1
Case b - $49k/$1k
Case c - $4900k/$100k

?

I'd like to know from KVH, Az, VJ and any other.

[VJ]

OK, a tad different then: Someone walks into the room, a third person is there. You are given $50 and are told you need to give the third person some of it. How much do you give?

Interesting question... I honestly don't know...

In this situation, it doesn't matter if the other person agrees or not, I cannot loose money (unlike in the original question, where I also risked loosing if to other one disagrees).

I think the division might depend from whether or not the other party knows how much I have been given, how much I need the money, and whether I like the other guy or not.


Jörg

[az]

OK, a tad different then: Someone walks into the room, a third person is there. You are given $50 and are told you need to give the third person some of it. How much do you give?

I am interested, suppose you are the third person in the Ultimatum game. Do you refuse:
Case a - $49/$1
Case b - $49k/$1k
Case c - $4900k/$100k.

a: refuse
b: unsure, depends on the circumstances: At the moment, I'm quite broke, so I'd be more inclined to agree. If I were moderately well off, I'd probably refuse.
c: agree

[Umfriend]

This is funy. I post two questions and I get a reply on each from one of you... Would you be as kind as to answer the other one as well? I'm _really_ interested (and from others as well)

[az]

Depends on Sympathy, I guess. 10 EUR with the person not meaning anything to me.

[KvHagedorn]

First scenario, it depends upon the situation. Who gives the money and for what purpose, and who is the other person in the room? If it is a friend or girl who I would like to be a friend I would ask them how much they need or just split it. If it's someone I do not like, I'd give him 5 cents.

Second scenario: I would refuse all three. The amount doesn't matter. Yeah it would suck to lose out on 100k but it would suck worse to lose out on 4.9 million.. so screw the greedy ****ole. This is even a more liberal distribution of wealth than happens at most corporations between the ceo and the low man on the totem pole. There it can be 1000:1 or worse. I have a definite disgust for someone who thinks he's worth 49x what I am "just because." If I had the power, I would screw him to the wall like that.

[Umfriend]

Ok, let's try the first scenario Zork-style:
YOU ARE IN A LARGE ROOM. YOU DO NOT RECOLLECT EVEN HAVING BEEN HERE. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU ARE. YET, YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE. THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE. YOU KNOW NONE OF THEM NOR ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. ONE OFFERS YOU $50 ON THE CONDITION YOU GIVE SOME OF IT TO THE OTHER PERSON. HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
> Watch one person
YOU NOTICE NOTHING OF INTEREST ABOUT ONE PERSON. HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
> Watch other person
YOU NOTICE NOTHING OF INTEREST ABOUT OTHER PERSON. HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
> Remember persons
YOU REMEMBER NOTHING ABOUT ONE OR OTHER PERSON. HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
> Say "Hi"
PERSONS SAY "Hi". HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
> Say "Wanna have sex?"
PERSONS DO NOT KNOW WHAT "SEX" IS. HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
> Inspect gender
IT IS TO DARK TO DISCERN GENDER. YOU ALSO NOTE THAT THE VOICES THAT REPLIED "Hi" COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED AND DID NOT DISCERN GENDER TO YOU. HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
> Jump
YOU JUMP. HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
> Screw them
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TOOLS TO DO THAT. HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
...

[KvHagedorn]

Since the people are perfect strangers, I will give the minimal divisible amount. A penny.