ok, alright now it makes more sense...u had left out that the other person had to know the percentage split. I'd do 35%
You totally F'd up the asking of that question lol... If all the stranger knows is that you have to give some of it away to them in order to keep the remaining share, then I can see where they'd try and take advantage of you by jacking up the %. But if they know rejecting the initial offer will also result in no money for them, then of course they'd accept it no matter how low. With the correct rules for this question, I would probably offer 50%. I think most people wouldn't press their luck at that point.
I would give them a dollar bill and tell em they dropped it on the floor. The idea is simple a dollar is too small raise suspicion and majority of people will accept it and move on. Meanwhile I take the pile of dough and make a run for it.
Never heard of it, but 25% seems reasonable...However, if a complete stranger offered me money, how can you not be leary of accepting it? Unless it was her...
I don't see how any answer except for the first one makes sense. If a person is willing to take some money from you, it should make no difference whether you're giving him $1 or $100 or $1 mil. If anything, people are less likely to be suspicious of a small amount of money.
That's why the Ultimatum Game, in its most basic form, is so interesting. It challenges our ideas about what motivates people. It suggests that people may be willing to sacrifice some of their own self-interest simply for the sake of fairness, even when they aren't helping anyone else. Another interesting game: Suppose you had two people play the Ultimatum game over and over (with each person keeping the same role in every game). In that case, each person would use their role in the game to bargain with the other, and a player could benefit in the long run by refusing the money in order to force the first player to offer more. Eventually, you'd expect the two to settle at some more or less stable percentage, but what would that be?
Exactly what I wanted to say. It seems like the majority of the board leans towards the economically logical aspect of the game (that the recipient should be glad to get any money at all). But I think with that view, you're neglecting the fact that you need their cooperation as well. If they feel they're being taken advantage of or treated unfairly, they may not be afraid to punish you for your unfairness by spurning your proposal at the cost of their own benefit. It's almost like selling a luxury product, such as a yacht. As the dealer, you believe you are in control because you have what they want. Naturally then, you want to make every dollar that you can, even if that means throwing in all of those tricks dealerships use. However, a knowledgeable customer knows that the dealership is at his mercy, and he could just walk out whenever he wants, resulting in him not receiving what he came for (the yacht), nor the dealership turning any revenue. I know the example is a bit flawed with some other factors playing in, but I think it displays the raw importance of the balance of power between the consumer and the dealer (or in the case of the ultimatum game, the recipient and the donor). FWIW, you should keep in mind that this money is being given to you for nothing as well. So if you're using the economic logic, you should welcome receiving any amount of money as well. I know people are going to disagree with what I just said, and I'd love to discuss it more if you're willing. Maybe the thread should be moved to the D&D if that's the case.
start a new thread, with all the rules and bylaws laid out, so there remains no question. i still stick with my 40% answer.
