From this weeks edition of TMQ (ESPN.com). Me likes - what else can this be applied to?
When Researchers Projected Magnetic Fields Into Dick Cheney's Brain, He Became Friendly: Economists call it the Ultimate Game, and have long contended it proves Homo sapiens insufficiently logical. Here's the situation. Two strangers are brought together by a third person who holds $1,000. He tells them the money is theirs to divide on these terms: Stranger A must propose how to split the $1,000, and Stranger B must either accept or reject A's offer. That concludes the game, no second round. Classical economists maintain Stranger A should say, "I propose that I get $999 and you get $1," and Stranger B should immediately respond, "I accept." Pure economic theory says A should maximize his gain by shafting B out of every possible farthing, while B should calculate that since his sole choice is between $1 and nothing, $1 is better. Yet researchers have played this game with volunteers in many nations, and it never works the way theory says. The bare-minimum offer is always rejected. Generally, A must offer at least 30 percent or B says no and both players get nothing. Classical economists have long harrumphed that B's response when the game is played with real money shows human beings are too emotional and insufficiently focused on maximizing outcomes.
This pot was stirred last week when researchers led by Dario Knoch of the University of Zurich reported that using magnets to disrupt the right prefrontal cortex of volunteers playing Stranger B caused them to become much more willing to accept low offers. Now, if someone was using magnetic waves to scramble parts of your brain, your bargaining skills might decline, too. ("Herr Professor Doktor, ve haff discovered zat when ve knock der volunteers unconscious mit ein sledgehammer, zey refuse to aufgeparticipatehaffen* in the experiment.") But I think tests like the University of Zurich study only point to the Ultimate Game being so flawed that it mainly shows us faults of classical economics.
First, the game assumes money is superior to all other forms of possessions, including psychological well-being. But the world doesn't work that way. If I am Stranger B and accept the $1 offer, I have a dollar bill but also feel like a total dupe: And how can being made to feel like a dupe be worth a mere dollar? Any small-percentage offer accepted by B would make B feel unhappy and taken advantage of, while rejecting the small-percentage offer gives B the pleasure of feeling retribution was achieved against A. Once the offer gets up to around 30 percent, then the value of the money might equal whatever unpleasant thoughts B will experience when seeing A cackling and counting a larger pile of loot. Reactions like rejecting very low offers do not, as classical economists maintain, show that B fails to understand economics. They show that B understands money is not everything!
Next, people in the B role might derive long-term benefits from refusing low offers, and these benefits might exceed the value of the money forgone. In his important new book "The Origin of Wealth," Eric Beinhocker speculates that the kind of circumstances in which B refuses a too-low offer are "the cornerstone for social cooperation that is essential for wealth creation." In order for the free market to serve the overall welfare of society, Beinhocker maintains, all must mutually agree not to participate in arrangements that exploit those with weak bargaining positions. Society must be structured such that A would feel ashamed of offering only $1 to B, and would offer a fair sum in order to feel good about the transaction. If parties in strong positions offer fair sums, the result is mutually beneficial trading for everyone, including the strong. (Are you listening, Wal-Mart?) "The Origin of Wealth" is a major new book that ought to be commanding significant attention. Beinhocker, a management consultant for McKinsey & Company, argues persuasively that market economics is not a war of all against all. Market economies do best, Beinhocker says, and the welfare of society rises most, when people voluntarily take each other's interests into account.
Finally, TMQ contends economists misunderstand their own Ultimate Game because the focus of discussion is always on what Stranger B will accept. The key to this puzzle is not B but Stranger A -- who is a total, utter idiot for offering only $1 because this insures A gets nothing! Offers in which A seeks to claim the lion's share are irrational on A's part, because such offers will fail. I would argue there is only one wise offer for A to make: that they each get $500. A 50/50 split is sure to be accepted, thus insuring Stranger A of pocketing $500. A fair-minded person playing the A role would offer a 50/50 split because it is fair; economically this is also the logical move, because it guarantees a successful transaction. By focusing on whether B will accept an inequitable offer, economists skip over how dumb it is for A to make such an offer. By contrast, fairness leads to benefits for both parties, which is the big point of "The Origin of Wealth."
(*Note: Tuesday Morning Quarterback has long contended that any verb can be converted into pseudo-German using the formula aufgeXXXXXhaffen. Thus to jog becomes to aufgejoggenhaffen, etc.)
Think about this in terms of proposing a three way with your girlfriend - with yourself being stranger A - your girlfriend being stranger B - and the third person (in this case a smoking hot chicky) being the $1000. The whole we'll get drunk and I'll do you first while you do her, then I'll do her while she does you - then we'll all do each other scenario from countless movies, mags, and boys imaginations equals the $999 to $1 offer.
What is the three way equivalent of the 50/50?
When Researchers Projected Magnetic Fields Into Dick Cheney's Brain, He Became Friendly: Economists call it the Ultimate Game, and have long contended it proves Homo sapiens insufficiently logical. Here's the situation. Two strangers are brought together by a third person who holds $1,000. He tells them the money is theirs to divide on these terms: Stranger A must propose how to split the $1,000, and Stranger B must either accept or reject A's offer. That concludes the game, no second round. Classical economists maintain Stranger A should say, "I propose that I get $999 and you get $1," and Stranger B should immediately respond, "I accept." Pure economic theory says A should maximize his gain by shafting B out of every possible farthing, while B should calculate that since his sole choice is between $1 and nothing, $1 is better. Yet researchers have played this game with volunteers in many nations, and it never works the way theory says. The bare-minimum offer is always rejected. Generally, A must offer at least 30 percent or B says no and both players get nothing. Classical economists have long harrumphed that B's response when the game is played with real money shows human beings are too emotional and insufficiently focused on maximizing outcomes.
This pot was stirred last week when researchers led by Dario Knoch of the University of Zurich reported that using magnets to disrupt the right prefrontal cortex of volunteers playing Stranger B caused them to become much more willing to accept low offers. Now, if someone was using magnetic waves to scramble parts of your brain, your bargaining skills might decline, too. ("Herr Professor Doktor, ve haff discovered zat when ve knock der volunteers unconscious mit ein sledgehammer, zey refuse to aufgeparticipatehaffen* in the experiment.") But I think tests like the University of Zurich study only point to the Ultimate Game being so flawed that it mainly shows us faults of classical economics.
First, the game assumes money is superior to all other forms of possessions, including psychological well-being. But the world doesn't work that way. If I am Stranger B and accept the $1 offer, I have a dollar bill but also feel like a total dupe: And how can being made to feel like a dupe be worth a mere dollar? Any small-percentage offer accepted by B would make B feel unhappy and taken advantage of, while rejecting the small-percentage offer gives B the pleasure of feeling retribution was achieved against A. Once the offer gets up to around 30 percent, then the value of the money might equal whatever unpleasant thoughts B will experience when seeing A cackling and counting a larger pile of loot. Reactions like rejecting very low offers do not, as classical economists maintain, show that B fails to understand economics. They show that B understands money is not everything!
Next, people in the B role might derive long-term benefits from refusing low offers, and these benefits might exceed the value of the money forgone. In his important new book "The Origin of Wealth," Eric Beinhocker speculates that the kind of circumstances in which B refuses a too-low offer are "the cornerstone for social cooperation that is essential for wealth creation." In order for the free market to serve the overall welfare of society, Beinhocker maintains, all must mutually agree not to participate in arrangements that exploit those with weak bargaining positions. Society must be structured such that A would feel ashamed of offering only $1 to B, and would offer a fair sum in order to feel good about the transaction. If parties in strong positions offer fair sums, the result is mutually beneficial trading for everyone, including the strong. (Are you listening, Wal-Mart?) "The Origin of Wealth" is a major new book that ought to be commanding significant attention. Beinhocker, a management consultant for McKinsey & Company, argues persuasively that market economics is not a war of all against all. Market economies do best, Beinhocker says, and the welfare of society rises most, when people voluntarily take each other's interests into account.
Finally, TMQ contends economists misunderstand their own Ultimate Game because the focus of discussion is always on what Stranger B will accept. The key to this puzzle is not B but Stranger A -- who is a total, utter idiot for offering only $1 because this insures A gets nothing! Offers in which A seeks to claim the lion's share are irrational on A's part, because such offers will fail. I would argue there is only one wise offer for A to make: that they each get $500. A 50/50 split is sure to be accepted, thus insuring Stranger A of pocketing $500. A fair-minded person playing the A role would offer a 50/50 split because it is fair; economically this is also the logical move, because it guarantees a successful transaction. By focusing on whether B will accept an inequitable offer, economists skip over how dumb it is for A to make such an offer. By contrast, fairness leads to benefits for both parties, which is the big point of "The Origin of Wealth."
(*Note: Tuesday Morning Quarterback has long contended that any verb can be converted into pseudo-German using the formula aufgeXXXXXhaffen. Thus to jog becomes to aufgejoggenhaffen, etc.)
Think about this in terms of proposing a three way with your girlfriend - with yourself being stranger A - your girlfriend being stranger B - and the third person (in this case a smoking hot chicky) being the $1000. The whole we'll get drunk and I'll do you first while you do her, then I'll do her while she does you - then we'll all do each other scenario from countless movies, mags, and boys imaginations equals the $999 to $1 offer.
What is the three way equivalent of the 50/50?
posted by Mike Honcho at 12:41 PM
3 Comments:
Hmmmmm.... this is a tricky one because it looks like the whole idea of the 50/50 proposition is to make the deal happen and for everyone to come away with something.
Question #1: Is my girlfriend sexually attracted to girl #3?? If not then there's no way we can come to some sort of compromise involving the mystery lady.
For the sake of this argument we'll say the girlfriend has a good buzz rolling and is willing to experiment with this sweet looking chick. Obviously, the 99/1 ratio question may be the first thing that pops into the head, but in order to maximize my chances of seeing them both naked I need to go with the 50/50.
I believe that the 50/50 proposition in this argument does not allow you to have physical sexual contact with the second woman. The only things I can come up with at the moment as even possibly 50/50 compromises are: She does her while I watch-or-I do girlfriend while girlfriend and freaky bitch get down at the same time... but don't look at the second woman for any more than three consecutive seconds, or else there's hell to be paid later.
Is there any possible 50/50 argument where you get to go balls deep in girl #2?? Do outside things need to become involved? (Money, shopping trips, houses, etc.) If they do need to become involved does that render the whole question null and void??
Nice question.
I think outside influences need to be involved. That is where I was going with this when I first started thinking about it. I don't think it nullifies the agreement - it just becomes part of the 500 that you give up. The context of the $1000 in this example is not defined - instead seeks definition.
To answer question #1 - we need to use real life examples. That goes as follows - your girlfriend is not sexually attracted to other girls in a genuine way that would on it's own result in sexual contact. And if she is - she isn't really that interested in you and certainly doesn't plan to include you in said contact. Like all real life girlfriends - she is not going to support this initiative.
So - in the 50/50 - you get to get down how you likes it - but what are you giving up? Does she get to hand off her rent payment to you for an indefinite period? Does she get a get out of jail free card for cheating? How many? Do you have to move in w/ her? Does she force you to get in shape and become vegan? Something horrible and stereotypically femalesque has to go down - but the catch is you know it is going down but allow it to get at the forbidden fruit.
This brings me in a new direction. Knowing that in the end - you'll be sacrificing much more than you actually gain - does this equate to Eve eating the apple in the Garden of Eden even though she has been told not to? And does this mean that pornography and rap videos are the devil incarnate and the fruit that he has chosen to present to modern day mortals is the elusive three way?
Does this make my enjoyment of the movie Wild Things equal to Satanic Worship?
But anyways - there has to be a real life equivalent - we all know that ladies are shameless and if it works out for them in the long run - they will sell there bodies and let you video tape it.
Enjoying Wild things is similar to satanic worship, not because of the nudity, but because of how bad that movie is. It includes two of the worst actresses in the non-silent era. The (semi)success of these women might be proof that evil is afoot.
As for the excerise, I'll agree mostly. First, your girlfriend definitely does not want to have sex with another girl. If your girlfriend wants to have sex with another girl, she is not your girlfriend, or she is not hot. Barbie lesbo's do not exist. If she still says she does she is obviously posturing emotionally/psychologically. Basically she wants more attention from you and chowbox is a diluted means to that end. At that point you have to ask yourself why you are asking your "girlfriend" to have sex with another. Of the same sex. We like to think so, and it has less social stigma, but it can't be different then her asking you to do a man. Don't get me started on the who-re third wheel. She is such a skank that her closest taste of a relationship is in another girls crotch and the guys taint. At the same time.
The 99/1 is promising to marry a girl after you fuck her and a friend/hooker at the same time.
The 50/50 Is you fucking her and a friend/hooker at the same time and her having a bath and some Cherry garcia while you get fucked in the ass.
Post a Comment
<< Home