• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Dictator Game

Read the thread before answering

  • $10

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • $7-$9

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • $4-$6

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • $1-$3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • $0

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • Total voters
    14
Hoplite

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,079
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm curious to run a small dictator game here on DP and see the results.

A dictator game is something in experimental economics where you have two individuals who do not know each other and will never meet. One person is given some amount of money and told that he can give any amount of that money to the person in the other room; that means he can give all of what he has, some of it, or none of it, they both leave, and neither gets to see or interact with the other at all.

It's a way of sort of measuring the concepts of altruism in a certain group.

So, if you were participating in this and given $10, how much of it would you give to the other person? Keep in mind, you know nothing about this other person, you will never meet this person, and you are free to give or keep as much as you want within the $10 and your decision is final.

So, what do you go with?
 
$0.

Then I would leave the room and give it to somebody I know who deserves it.
 
why is it called a "dictator game?"
 
other said:
why is it called a "dictator game?"
Click to expand...
Because you have total control over who gets what. It's related to a similar experiment called the "Ultimatum Game" where you have a similar set-up, except both sides have to agree on a split or else both sides get nothing.
 
Hoplite said:
Because you have total control over who gets what. It's related to a similar experiment called the "Ultimatum Game" where you have a similar set-up, except both sides have to agree on a split or else both sides get nothing.
Click to expand...

We played that game here, too, a long time ago.
 
My gut tells me to split it, $5 each.
 
I stick the $10 in my pocket and leave. On the way out the door, I cuss out the guy who drug me into this, for wasting my time for a measely ten bucks! ;)
 
Goshin said:
I stick the $10 in my pocket and leave. On the way out the door, I cuss out the guy who drug me into this, for wasting my time for a measely ten bucks! ;)
Click to expand...

If I give you ten bucks, would you be willing to watch a three hour movie about a nazi thinking about surrender to the french?
 
megaprogman said:
If I give you ten bucks, would you be willing to watch a three hour movie about a nazi thinking about surrender to the french?
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo
 
I'm interested in seeing what effects that examining game theory has on Hoplites idealism :)

Random and no communication? Betray, betray, betray.
 
Last edited:
Oh, crap. I voted for the wong option I think. I voted $10, thinking the question would be how much would I take for myself. But apparently its how much would I give away, in which case the answer should be none.

A completely random stranger who I don't even have to deal with? I'd gladly take the cash and walk. Heck, I'd take the whole ten bucks even if I was face to face with them in most circumstances.
 
zero. nada. zip. I am a rational and narrowly self-interested actor who has the ability to make judgments towards my subjectively or otherwise, defined ends. Most of the time. Sometimes. A little bit of the time. Oh, h*ll, here, you take the money. Having it causes me to have to make too many decisions about what to do with it. I'm better off without it. Aarrrggghhhh.
 
Mach said:
I'm interested in seeing what effects that examining game theory has on Hoplites idealism :)
Click to expand...
Oh it'll take a lot more than that to destroy my idealism :)

I think our results so far are interesting. If we account for the one mark in the top category that apparently was an accident, we have four votes for a more-or-less even split and five for keeping it all. Not what I'd anticipated at all.
 
I'd keep it all. If the other person is someone I don't know and I don't have to interact with, then they may as well not even be a part of this game at all. I don't necessarily think that this is a good example of altruism; without any information about the other person, there is simply no reason to be altruistic toward them. Are they poor? Did they contribute as much time to this game as I did? Etc, etc.

I'm thinking that most of the people who voted for an equitable split would not be so charitable if they were simply given $10, and asked if they would like to give any money to some random person (not for any specific cause) as they were leaving the testing center.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I'd keep it all. If the other person is someone I don't know and I don't have to interact with, then they may as well not even be a part of this game at all. I don't necessarily think that this is a good example of altruism; without any information about the other person, there is simply no reason to be altruistic toward them. Are they poor? Did they contribute as much time to this game as I did? Etc, etc.

I'm thinking that most of the people who voted for an equitable split would not be so charitable if they were simply given $10, and asked if they would like to give any money to some random person (not for any specific cause) as they were leaving the testing center.
Click to expand...

I think this brings up a very good point. Having a sense of the other person and/or their situation plays a lot into the equation.
 
I would always take the money. Even if being perfectly altruistic, I would rather give the money to a place I know it could help rather than gamble that the other guy really needs it.
 
Kandahar said:
I'd keep it all. If the other person is someone I don't know and I don't have to interact with, then they may as well not even be a part of this game at all. I don't necessarily think that this is a good example of altruism; without any information about the other person, there is simply no reason to be altruistic toward them. Are they poor? Did they contribute as much time to this game as I did? Etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Considering the definition of altruism requires it to be selfless, I don't think you can argue that. If you need a reason, that's not selfless. Don't feel bad though, altruism I think is in general a contradictory concept...not really a failing on your part! :)
 
Mach said:
Considering the definition of altruism requires it to be selfless, I don't think you can argue that. If you need a reason, that's not selfless. Don't feel bad though, altruism I think is in general a contradictory concept...not really a failing on your part! :)
Click to expand...

Ya, I'm of the opinion that almost nothing we humans do is truly "selfless." Ultimately we're always looking out for ourselves.
 
Assuming that I was a billionair and the additional $10 thus had no real value to me other than a few measly "points" (the one who has the most toys we he dies wins), then I may choose to give it away as the odds are that the other person probably would value the money more than I do (maybe that $10 would keep them from starving to death or would be the last $10 that they need to afford a operation to save their life or limb.

Assuming that I was dirt poor, I would vote to keep the money because chances are that I would need it more than the random person.

Assuming that I was somewhere in the middle, I would likely keep the money because it would be equally likely to go to someone who is a bad or rich person (not that bad or rich has any correlation) as it would to a good or poor person (again, no relationship between poor or good).

Assuming that I can't make any assumptions, then I would personally keep the money - what the heck, there is no motivation for me to do otherwise.
 
So what were he expectations of the OP? What surprises me is that anyone would give away any of the money.
 
imagep said:
So what were he expectations of the OP? What surprises me is that anyone would give away any of the money.
Click to expand...
It appears that a little under half of the respondents would give away about half of the money, I find that interesting.
 
Hoplite said:
It appears that a little under half of the respondents would give away about half of the money, I find that interesting.
Click to expand...

Interesting, maybe. I just think it to be weird. What conclusion can we get from this, other than we have a lot of posters who arn't rational?
 
imagep said:
Interesting, maybe. I just think it to be weird. What conclusion can we get from this, other than we have a lot of posters who arn't rational?
Click to expand...

I think the point is that people cannot be easily be put in a box and will surprise us.
 
imagep said:
Interesting, maybe. I just think it to be weird. What conclusion can we get from this, other than we have a lot of posters who arn't rational?
Click to expand...
Dictator experiment doesn't reveal much, I agree. Somewhat interesting, but way too broad. That's the jist of it though...typically the results have mixed with some giving, and some not. In other similar experiments, maybe 40-50%.

The games in game theory reveal a lot more, but I suppose they are also harder to implement in a simple poll.

IMO, since game theory really describes how nature works in many cases, humans have naturally evolved to employ both winning strategies. Betray and cooperate. Depending on possibly genetics, which one people use most often, which they were raised under, etc., you'd expect that you'd see some people stuck on super-rational behavior of sharing, even in cases where it's not advantageous. I mean, if all survival behavior required "reasoning it out" first, we'd all be dead, you know what I mean? We even have cultural mechanisms (often religion for example), that promote a faith-based adherence to the cooperate strategy. Surprising that those are dominant in these large societies? Not really right? What culture promotes the pure rational choices? They don't seem to do too well....mathematically, and historically.

As much as I loathe religion, it may be one of the most prominent features of our culture to perpetuate a mathematically superior survival strategy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom