You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

RomeoStevens comments on Prisoner's Dilemma on game show Golden Balls - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: atorm 21 April 2012 12:31AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (29)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 21 April 2012 02:47:32AM 3 points [-]

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).

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 21 April 2012 03:07:41AM *  13 points [-]

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.

Comment author: AlexMennen 21 April 2012 06:49:53AM 20 points [-]

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.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 26 April 2012 03:35:27AM 5 points [-]

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.