4 ms·
By telling his strategy (“100%, I’m going to steal”), the first player forced the endgame he wanted. The second player had no option other than choose split in
by hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
By telling his strategy (“100%, I’m going to steal”), the first player forced the endgame he wanted. The second player had no option other than choose split in the hope he gets something. If the first player had instead manifested his interest in splitting, the second player would have no rational reason to not choosing to steal.
It's an interesting twist on the prisoner's dilemma, and the first player played it accordingly.
Even more interesting is this other video, which shows how cooperation without punishment doesn't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flPaDwiqP_o#t=149 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flPaDwiqP_o#t=149
- cJ0th 13y agoPerhaps he had no rational reason to choose steal. But the actual issue is this: Is the other guy trustworthy? Now if the "guy who had no choice" can't help but label the other guy untrustworthy because he has amazingly good people skills he could very well consider stealing to take revenge. btw: your video is interesting as well. I think the convo gave a pretty good clue as to who was the honest one. I couldn't sense any real emotions in her. He on the other hand came across almost desperate.
- segmondy 13y agoactually, the second player had the option to pick steal. the end game is that both of them will not pick steal and end up with nothing. if the second player had picked steal, he would have realized what the first guy was doing and since the first said he would steal and promised to split, he could still have had a change of heart and split with the second player. if i was the second player, i would have chosen steal. if obama was the first player and the second player is putin/jinping, i can assure you they would also choose steal. the first player lucked out on that gambit.