WTF why did he (the precommiter) choose split after all?
The WHOLE point is to change it from a difficult decision with close outcomes to one where split is the only choice with positive utility (the chance that other person will keep their word).
WTF why did he (the precommiter) choose split after all?
If the other guy (Abraham) had chosen “steal”, the supposed precommitter (Nick) would not have gotten anything either way, under any scenario. If Abraham had chosen “split”, it was a time-saver to have the gameshow hosts divide the money between them, than to gift half of it afterwards to him.
So Nick’s whole ploy was to effectively scare Abraham into saying “split”—by making him think that contrary to normal expectations it was saying “steal” that would ensure he would get nothing. Once Nick had convinced him of that, there was no longer any need to say “steal”: Nick had either managed to convince him or he hadn’t.
Nick sacrifices credibility for future claimed precommitments of course.
Nick sacrifices credibility for future claimed precommitments of course.
He sacrifices credibility in future threats against people, but maintains credibility in future promises to act in others’ benefit just as much as if he had decided to steal and then give Abraham half the money. This latter credibility is probably much more useful in most real situations.
The moment I found out I was going to be on this show I would obtain two notarized contracts.
When the time comes to deliberate I whip out the first contract. It states that if I choose “split” I must donate $10k to the KKK + any prize money I get (the $10k at least is held in trust).
Then I ask my opponent to split, I whip out a second contract stating that any and all prize money I receive is going 100% to medical research. His choice now has nothing to do with money for me or him, only if the television studio keeps the money or if it goes to medical research.
I hope this is novel enough to land me a talk show appearance where I pimp my ebook on using cognitive science and game theory to improve your life.
No, Romeo chooses steal. If his opponent also chooses steal (in spite of Romeo’s credible commitment to choosing steal himself), the opponent does not get any money.
WTF why did he (the precommiter) choose split after all?
The WHOLE point is to change it from a difficult decision with close outcomes to one where split is the only choice with positive utility (the chance that other person will keep their word).
If the other guy (Abraham) had chosen “steal”, the supposed precommitter (Nick) would not have gotten anything either way, under any scenario.
If Abraham had chosen “split”, it was a time-saver to have the gameshow hosts divide the money between them, than to gift half of it afterwards to him.
So Nick’s whole ploy was to effectively scare Abraham into saying “split”—by making him think that contrary to normal expectations it was saying “steal” that would ensure he would get nothing. Once Nick had convinced him of that, there was no longer any need to say “steal”: Nick had either managed to convince him or he hadn’t.
Nick sacrifices credibility for future claimed precommitments of course.
He sacrifices credibility in future threats against people, but maintains credibility in future promises to act in others’ benefit just as much as if he had decided to steal and then give Abraham half the money. This latter credibility is probably much more useful in most real situations.
no no no.
The moment I found out I was going to be on this show I would obtain two notarized contracts.
When the time comes to deliberate I whip out the first contract. It states that if I choose “split” I must donate $10k to the KKK + any prize money I get (the $10k at least is held in trust).
Then I ask my opponent to split, I whip out a second contract stating that any and all prize money I receive is going 100% to medical research. His choice now has nothing to do with money for me or him, only if the television studio keeps the money or if it goes to medical research.
I hope this is novel enough to land me a talk show appearance where I pimp my ebook on using cognitive science and game theory to improve your life.
And then your opponent still steals, gets all the money, and nothing goes to medical research. woopty doo.
No, Romeo chooses steal. If his opponent also chooses steal (in spite of Romeo’s credible commitment to choosing steal himself), the opponent does not get any money.