5 ms·

Yeah, the relative value of the money matters a lot. To make it even more extreme, if the total was 100 million dollars and I was offered 1 million, I would tak

Yeah, the relative value of the money matters a lot. To make it even more extreme, if the total was 100 million dollars and I was offered 1 million, I would take it. But if the total was $100 and I was offered $10, I'd probably refuse. The bit about offering more than 60% in gift-giving cultures and having the other player still reject them is surprising. What would explain that?

astine 14y ago
In the article they mentioned later that in gift-giving cultures receiving a gift make one indebted. They are rejecting the offers, not because they are too small, but because they are too big. The people offering as much as 60% are doing so to gain favours.
- lucastx 14y ago
  But wasn't the offers anonymous? Maybe it is even worse this way: you get indebted to an unknown person!
  - yk 14y ago
    Probably there is some heuristics at work, which gives the intuition that a too good split is somehow dangerous. (Similar to how people who are afraid of the dark try to avoid both caves and cellars. )
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
markdown 14y ago
Wait, why would you ever refuse a gift? I don't get that. If someone offered me a dollar out of his million, I'd accept it and be very grateful.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  The game is that if you refuse, the person loses their $999,999.
  - markdown 14y ago
    Which makes it even more horrifying. Why would you cause someone to lose something because they gave you some of it? It's pure evil.
    - detst 14y ago
      It's not their money "to lose". Neither player has any right to the money until the game is over and the game isn't over until they've both made a decision. That's the difference between this game and a millionaire offering you money. You may be lucky to be offered anything in both cases but in one you are being screwed in the context of the game. It's a matter of returning the favor. It may not be the most economically sound decision but if the amount lost isn't significant to you, it doesn't matter. > It's pure evil. "markdown took $99 of $100?! He caused me to lose money. He's pure evil." No. It's not my money to lose but I don't like the way you played the game so I'll pass on the $1, thanks.
- ShardPhoenix 14y ago
  You might refuse if you're pre-commiting to fairness (which could be correct in some situations and decision theories).
- j_baker 14y ago
  Human beings are irrational and sometimes do things that aren't in their economic best interest out of principle or ethics. Think about it: if I murder somebody, then offer you $100 not to tell anyone, would you take the money? I certainly hope not. And yet, from a strictly economic perspective, that's a fundamentally terrible decision. Not only will you lose $100, but you'd lose tons of time you could be working talking to the police, testifying in court, etc.
  - 14y ago

astine 14y ago

In the article they mentioned later that in gift-giving cultures receiving a gift make one indebted. They are rejecting the offers, not because they are too small, but because they are too big. The people offering as much as 60% are doing so to gain favours.

lucastx 14y ago
But wasn't the offers anonymous? Maybe it is even worse this way: you get indebted to an unknown person!
- yk 14y ago
  Probably there is some heuristics at work, which gives the intuition that a too good split is somehow dangerous. (Similar to how people who are afraid of the dark try to avoid both caves and cellars. )

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

markdown 14y ago

Wait, why would you ever refuse a gift? I don't get that. If someone offered me a dollar out of his million, I'd accept it and be very grateful.

recoiledsnake 14y ago
The game is that if you refuse, the person loses their $999,999.
- markdown 14y ago
  Which makes it even more horrifying. Why would you cause someone to lose something because they gave you some of it? It's pure evil.
  - detst 14y ago
    It's not their money "to lose". Neither player has any right to the money until the game is over and the game isn't over until they've both made a decision. That's the difference between this game and a millionaire offering you money. You may be lucky to be offered anything in both cases but in one you are being screwed in the context of the game. It's a matter of returning the favor. It may not be the most economically sound decision but if the amount lost isn't significant to you, it doesn't matter. > It's pure evil. "markdown took $99 of $100?! He caused me to lose money. He's pure evil." No. It's not my money to lose but I don't like the way you played the game so I'll pass on the $1, thanks.
ShardPhoenix 14y ago
You might refuse if you're pre-commiting to fairness (which could be correct in some situations and decision theories).
j_baker 14y ago
Human beings are irrational and sometimes do things that aren't in their economic best interest out of principle or ethics. Think about it: if I murder somebody, then offer you $100 not to tell anyone, would you take the money? I certainly hope not. And yet, from a strictly economic perspective, that's a fundamentally terrible decision. Not only will you lose $100, but you'd lose tons of time you could be working talking to the police, testifying in court, etc.
- 14y ago