5 ms·
> Show me the math. Imagine a game you play with someone where you have 40 units and you need to divide it between the two of you. The other person has the cho
by pdamoc 10y ago
> Show me the math.
Imagine a game you play with someone where you have 40 units and you need to divide it between the two of you. The other person has the choice of accepting the deal or refusing the deal. If they refuse, both of you get nothing. How do you divide the 40 units so that the other person accepts the deal?
Naive economics points that even if you offer the other only 1 unit, the other should take it because if they refuse the deal, they wouldn't have even that unit. In practice however, people down't work like that. If people feel they are being treated wrong, they tend to go for lose-lose. And so, in these kind of games, most people go for a fair split 20-20.
Now, imagine the same game but with a twist. You have a bunch of instances of these games and your objective is to have the highest score across all the instances. The trick is that the other player has to chose you to play with. What strategy would you adopt so that you maximize the score?
In this game, a 25-15 split is better. You lose the small game BUT more players want to play with you and so, you win the BIG game. Altruistic players are better at playing the BIG game, the long term game.
- icebraining 10y agoYou're essentially saying that "bread and circuses" counts as an altruistic action. If you're expecting a payout, isn't that by definition not altruism?
- dmichulke 10y agoThe payout is the problem with the definition "altruism", you can always find a reason for which the person did it, even if it was just because she felt better due to helping others. If you ask this question, you either have to have one example where there is no payout at all (note this should be an example most people agree on) or you accept there is no altruism, at least not following your definition of the word.