Would you rather have an equal share of nothing or £5000

[HeadingNorth]

It is quite deep isn't it.

 

I think with most groups of people you'd find that the result was that nobody got anything.

 

I suspected at the time that the reason the above-mentioned game show didn't last very long on the schedules, was because it hardly ever paid out any prize money.

 

I particularly remember one episode where the prize fund was about £5k/£3k/£1k, and two women on the show both agreed that the man deserved the top prize, but each insisted that they deserved the middle one. They had some amount of time (two minutes?) to come to an agreement, and with every second they wasted the prize money shrank, until after the time was up it would be £0 each.

 

Well, it took until there were only ten seconds left for one of the women to cave and accept third prize; by which time, second prize was about £300, and the woman who got it was actually grinning with happiness because she'd got a bigger prize. It never occurred to her that she was actually £700 worse off than if she'd accepted the smaller one.

[Cyclone]

The original scenario is meant to include that, but maybe it wasn't entirely clear.

 

The position is that there's a £1million prize fund, split into ten prizes as MrSmith describes. The ten people in the group must agree on who takes home which prize, or nobody gets anything. (Written agreements to accept whatever share and then redistribute the amounts equally afterwards, will disqualify you from winning.)

 

If the other 9 people end up agreeing that you should get the smallest amount, would you accept their decision and take the smallest amount, or would you refuse to accept it on the grounds that it's grossly unfair?

 

Exactly, there is no way to cheat it and to split it equally, you won't be able to exchange money afterwards, if you accept £5k, then you get £5k and everyone else gets more.

 

It could be described as unfair of course, but it's going to be unfair to someone (maybe to everyone except one player) in the group. Is an unfair split of something preferable to fairly getting nothing though?

[MrSmith]

I am assuming it makes more sense if you have seen the show, I was thinking you had to agree on who got what but no I now have absolutely no idea what you mean. Do the others not see which amounts you are rejecting?

 

I'll try to make it easier, the money is in ten piles, everyone can see every pile, everyone is likely to choose the biggest pile and if no one changes their mind and chooses the smaller piles of money everyone loses.

[llamatron]

The millionaire isn’t deciding who gets what; all he is says is it must be shared unequally by agreement and not by putting names in hats or pulling straws. Each person must agree the amount they will take, there will be arguments throughout the process but ultimately everyone as to agree to the amount they get. Would you take the £5000 and allow everyone else to take more than you.

It is deliberately designed to be unfair.

 

I don't see how my original answer isn't acceptable, its not random its a decision everyone makes. If it was decided like that and I got assigned the £5000 then I would take it.

 

If it was decided based on who the most irritating person wanted to get each amount I would argue until we got nothing.

[llamatron]

I'll try to make it easier, the money is in ten piles, everyone can see every pile, everyone is likely to choose the biggest pile and if no one changes their mind and chooses the smaller piles of money everyone loses.

 

I understand the concept of the uneven split, I don't understand why my initial answer was disallowed as it was nothing like drawing strawers etc!

[HeadingNorth]

It could be described as unfair of course, but it's going to be unfair to someone (maybe to everyone except one player) in the group. Is an unfair split of something preferable to fairly getting nothing though?

 

To most people, it seems not to be. An amazingly large number would prefer an equal share of nothing to an unfairly small share of something.

 

You can see that even in political arguments; very rarely do you see comparisons between how well off the worst 5% of society is compared to how well off it was ten years ago; you always see them compared to the top 5% and arguments raging about gross unfairness. Personally, if I'm twice as well off as before and some other people are ten times as well off as before, I'm very happy.

[llamatron]

I am rather confused by the fact that I am sort of arguing about this-how pointless:hihi:

 

It should be decided by a maze system, whichever pile you find first you get!

[HeadingNorth]

I understand the concept of the uneven split, I don't understand why my initial answer was disallowed as it was nothing like drawing strawers etc!

 

Let's not say "disallowed."

 

Let us rather say that, because there is no way to prevent it, the person who agrees to take £25,000 and is nominated to tell the gameshow host who gets what, will then say "I get £500,000" and there's nothing you can do about it; he will get £500,000 because the other nine of you have already said "we will take what this guy tells you we are going to take."

 

Consequently it's not a valid solution to the problem, since you can't enforce the agreement.

[HeadingNorth]

I am rather confused by the fact that I am sort of arguing about this-how pointless:hihi:

 

It should be decided by a maze system, whichever pile you find first you get!

 

Insofar as it was the premiss of a game show, it is a fairly pointless discussion. It's surprising, though, just how often decisions of this nature crop up in real life, and we are faced with deciding between unfair, unequal shares of a large pot, or equal shares of a small one.

[MrSmith]

I don't see how my original answer isn't acceptable, its not random its a decision everyone makes. If it was decided like that and I got assigned the £5000 then I would take it.

 

If it was decided based on who the most irritating person wanted to get each amount I would argue until we got nothing.

 

The point is that you have to decide what you are prepared to take, and the other players decide what they are prepared to take; it’s not a group decision on who gets what, no one in the group can tell you what to take, its your choice.