Another Dilemma- Money

[manic_depressive13]

You are asked to participate in an experiment. You are partnered with an anonymous person who you cannot see or speak to. You are given $10 and are told that you can send any amount of that money to your partner. The money you send them will be tripled in value. After they receive the money they have the option of sending some back to you. Your partner knows how much money you were given to start with.

How much money, if any, do you send to this anonymous partner?

Bonus question: If you were the partner and you recieved $30, therefore knowing that the person on the other side gave you all the money they had, would you return any? How much?

Just to clarify:

If I send that person $3, they will receive $9. They may choose to return $1 so we both end up with $8.

EDIT: Double bonus question! What if you started with $500?

 

[Maze1125]

Send the full $10. Humans are pretty much programmed to cooperate with people they know have already cooperated with them, so the other person will almost certainly send $15 or more and, if they don't, it's only $10 in the first place.

Equally, if I received $30, then I'd send back $15.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Send the full $10. Humans are pretty much programmed to cooperate with people they know have already cooperated with them, so the other person will almost certainly send $15 or more and, if they don't, it's only $10 in the first place.

Equally, if I received $30, then I'd send back $15.

This. That was fairly easy. As an investment id like to think my partner realises the way we both make the most money is through this series of events. Even if he sent me back 11 and kept 19 i wouldnt mind too much. Likely id get back 10 i imagine, thats the amount of debt i think people would want to pay me back. Id still send the full 10 no matter what.

 

[Auron225]

Yeah this one isn't much of a dilemma. Id send the full $10. Worse case scenario, I lose $10 - its not that bad.

If I recieved $30 from my end, Id send back $15.

If I got $50, Id still send all of it in the hopes that they'd return my $75.


To make this a much more thought provoking dilemma, increase the amount you start with to something very substantial like $1,000,000.

 

[Rawne1980]

To make this a much more thought provoking dilemma, increase the amount you start with to something very substantial like $1,000,000.

A million isn't a dilemma at all.

I'd keep the money and skip on my merry way.

A million is enough to live on.

If I was the person one the other end and someone passed me the million to be tripled. I'd give them the million back and walk off with 2 because greed is fun.

But no, I wouldn't hand over the million to start with, that's just silly.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Yeah this one isn't much of a dilemma. Id send the full $10. Worse case scenario, I lose $10 - its not that bad.

If I recieved $30 from my end, Id send back $15.

If I got $50, Id still send all of it in the hopes that they'd return my $75.


To make this a much more thought provoking dilemma, increase the amount you start with to something very substantial like $1,000,000.

I wanted this to be realistic. No exploding limbs and no boundless riches.

So you'd need $1 000 000 for the sake of not coughing up eh? So if you were given $500, you would risk just throwing it down the drain? And if someone was to receive $1500 you think their oxytocin would be high enough to make them want to give up even enough to reimburse your investment? Keep in mind you never find out who the other person even is.

 

[Auron225]

Yeah this one isn't much of a dilemma. Id send the full $10. Worse case scenario, I lose $10 - its not that bad.

If I recieved $30 from my end, Id send back $15.

If I got $50, Id still send all of it in the hopes that they'd return my $75.


To make this a much more thought provoking dilemma, increase the amount you start with to something very substantial like $1,000,000.

I wanted this to be realistic. No exploding limbs and no boundless riches.

So you'd need $1 000 000 for the sake of not coughing up eh? So if you were given $500, you would risk just throwing it down the drain? And if someone was to receive $1500 you think their oxytocin would be high enough to make them want to give up even enough to reimburse your investment? Keep in mind you never find out who the other person even is.

At no point did I say $1,000,000 is where I draw the line and give nothing - it just seems a typical "large amount of money" for things like this. And why do you want your hypothetical to be realistic? The beautiful thing about hypotheticals? They aren't supposed to be realistic. Money that magically triples isn't doing that very well anyway...

If I was given $1,000,000, I'd send $200,000 or so. I still have plenty to be rich and they can probably spend that 600k better than I can spend 200k. So if you got $500, you wouldn't send one cent to them? I know the other person can be anyone at all, but I thought they were as aware of the situation as I am and would in most cases send SOMETHING back in way of appreciation. You seem to have VERY little faith in human kindness.

 

[beniki]

I think about $5... but I'm still working out the best profit to dollar ratio, whilst still maintaining some savings.

Hmm... actually on reflection, $6. Gives the best return, keeping the numbers simple and not going into cents.

 

[beniki]

*double post*

Edit bonus: Send half back. Seems only fair, and encourages better relations in the future.

 

[blazearmoru]

Your dilemma reminds me of the manga liar game. Anyway the guy above is right. 10$ isn't much if I lose everything. Think of it this way. I'd give away 10 dollars even if I KNEW they won't give anything back. Why? Because my loss to me is 1. nothing. and 2. lesser than their gain.

Your dilemma (in my head at least) is basically. "Would you give up a dollar to save a dying kid right in front of your eyes". A dilemma requires investment, it requires risk, it requires fear. A better investment would be this:

You're in debt, huge debt. You're gona die. Your family is gona die. Everyone you know and love are gona die due to your debt size. It may or may not be your fault but they're all gona die, but the people going after you felt like playing a sadistic game with you, one which could get you out of this mess. Let us say it's 100million. You are told that this other asshole is in debt too but his debt is 125million. You're given in cash, at this very moment the exact amount of your debt and is asked if you want to give any of it to the other guy and the other guy will receive TWICE the amount you give and is then given the option to give either 25million, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200 million. The problem is though, you need to at least pay back 75million of your debt to even call off the hunt, and the remaining 25million would devour any chance of you getting anywhere in life. Also you can only give in amounts of 25million as well, meaning 25m, 50m, 75m, 100m or nothing. Too bad this isn't realistic. Also it's not a dilemma either...

A dilemma (Greek: δί-λημμα "double proposition") is a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is practically acceptable. Q_Q it's a partial dilemma given that there are more than two possibilities but in your case, all your possibilities are fully acceptable.

 

[mirage202]

This sounds almost exactly like a certain long running Eve scam, difference being nobody hands you the initial sum.

In this particular case though, I'd participate in the experiment and hand the money to my partner, as obviously someone is after the results, and what the hell, its not my $10 so what does it matter if I never see it again?

 

[Moderated]

I would send back ten.
Either they send me 15, or I lose 10 dollars.
Now if it was 500, then that changes things. I would have to think about it harder. I think I would give like 250. That way, I'm not as screwed if they don't give any back. If I was on the other end and they gave me 500, I would give him 500 back.

 

[Akytalusia]

well... this isn't much of a dilemma for me. i would just send it all to them. and i don't care what they do with it. i know money is more important to them than it is to me. so no matter what happens, as long as they're satisfied with whatever they end up doing with it, then everything worked out for everyone.

and on the receiving end, i would send back everything they sent me.

same deal if we started with $500.

i have enough money. having more wouldn't benefit me. but they're human so, they like money. they can have it. whatever floats their boat i guess.

 

[Olas]

I'd give them all of it. Self motivated thinking has a way of inhibiting us. If I got 30 dollars I'd give back 20. The extra 5 is a tip for their generosity and trust.

With a million dollars? I'd give $900,000 of it. $100,000 is still more money than I'll ever have use for anyway.

 

[Dags90]

Reminds me of this thing a local radio station did. If you won, you could either get $100 right away, or gamble between 3 "doors" for $500. Someone gambled and lost and tried saying "you can't miss what you never had". Bullshit. You had the $100, it was guaranteed to you. Feel free to miss it.

If I knew it was an experiment though, I'd probably cooperate with small sums due to social desirability bias. With ridiculously large sums I'd assume the money wasn't actually real, which cuts into the greed quite heavily. I mean, who treats a suitcase with $1,000,000 in cash the same as some psychology grad student telling you you have $1,000,000 to play with? Nobody.

 

[Bvenged]

I'd give it all to them, both instances. I'm not rich, but I'm sure other people have a better use for the stuff then me. It's just generous. I wouldn't expect anything in return either.

 

[spartan231490]

I would send all 10, it's just $10. If I received $30, I would send back $10. They get the same they gave me.

 

[manic_depressive13]

At no point did I say $1,000,000 is where I draw the line and give nothing - it just seems a typical "large amount of money" for things like this. And why do you want your hypothetical to be realistic? The beautiful thing about hypotheticals? They aren't supposed to be realistic. Money that magically triples isn't doing that very well anyway...

If I was given $1,000,000, I'd send $200,000 or so. I still have plenty to be rich and they can probably spend that 600k better than I can spend 200k. So if you got $500, you wouldn't send one cent to them? I know the other person can be anyone at all, but I thought they were as aware of the situation as I am and would in most cases send SOMETHING back in way of appreciation. You seem to have VERY little faith in human kindness.

Maybe realistic isn't the right word. It's just that at the point where you get millions it doesn't really matter how much you send because by sending a tiny fraction both of you will have enough to be rich. I meant to keep it as a relatively small sum of money to make you think "If I send all the money I can make a profit or lose everything, but if I send a fraction I might end up with less, and I could use that money to buy lunch/pay the bills this month."

I never said I wouldn't send any if I got $500. I'd probably send it all just to see how it would work out. The point of this hypothetical is to see how willing people are to cooperate given something trivial like a bit of money, as opposed to when you have bombs strapped to you. I find it amusing that in a life/death situation, approximately 40% of people would doom another person to agonising death (as seen in linked thread), while in a benign situation like this one people are willing to cooperate and plenty seem to have faith their partner will do the same.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.396271-Poll-Dilemma-What-will-you-do-to-protect-yourself?page=1

 

[Frezzato]

You are asked to participate in an experiment.

Easy, just send them $2.50.

You're left with $7.50 and their $2.50 triples to...$7.50.

It's the same with the $500. Just send them 25% ($125). And $125 X 3 = $375, which is exactly what you're left with.

The anonymous recipient doesn't have to return any money once they find out how much you started with. If the money is free, then the easiest and least passive-aggressive thing to do is do it the way I illustrated. Otherwise just be an anonymous jerk.


Merry Christmas!

 

[lechat]

You are asked to participate in an experiment.

Easy, just send them $2.50.

You're left with $7.50 and their $2.50 triples to...$7.50.

It's the same with the $500. Just send them 25% ($125). And $125 X 3 = $375, which is exactly what you're left with.

The anonymous recipient doesn't have to return any money once they find out how much you started with. If the money is free, then the easiest and least passive-aggressive thing to do is do it the way I illustrated. Otherwise just be an anonymous jerk.


Merry Christmas!

pretty basic solution but it misses the fact that you are basically throwing money away both for yourself and for the team

if you give away 25% of the money that is a 25% loss in what you could have made and a 50% increase in what the team earns assuming they give nothing back which you can bet your ass they won't

if you were to keep 100% of the money you get 100% of the money (obviously) but the team earns 0% increase on the money

if you give away 100% of the money the team earns a 300% increase in the investment but you potentially walk away with nothing, obviously the best case scenario is they give back 50% of what they earn and you both earn 150% of the initial money. but will they give back anything? luckily we already have the answer to that in the form of a gameshow http://internetwriter62.hubpages.com/hub/Friend-or-Foe-Game-Show-what-it-Reveals-about-Human-Nature

turns out ppl are dicks. the most logical thing to do on that show is to choose to share since that is the only way to guarantee the team gets something and the money doesn't just disappear keep in mind ppl are on TV for that so when you screw your opponent the world knows you are a dick.
now in this scenario i assume everyone is anonymous and hence the only likely outcome i see is you will keep 100% of the money guaranteeing you get to keep the max amount possible with zero risk and if you give away any money they keep 100% of that

in the original example i would assume the vast majority of us would give away the whole $10 because to most of us $10 is nothing and an act of generosity or a lesson in morality would be worth losing it. scale it up to 500 and all you do is increase the amount of ppl that consider $500 to be an amount worth keeping. at the 1 million mark i think most of you underestimate greed, all you have to do is look at the amount of lotto winners who do anything in their power to keep that cash out of the hands of their friends and family to realize what you would do if you had the choice to give some of it to a stranger.

essentially what this reads as is "hey i have a million dollars to give you . would you like 500k instead?"