Originally Posted by jhaines
Interesting, then, that academic treatments
of the problem go out of their way to put "rational" in quotes and explicitly define it as only being rational when you only
consider personal financial gain. Which is exactly what I said before.
And I agreed
with you in my response. Here it is again. Emphasis mine.
Originally Posted by vespaguy
Of course it isn't. We have emotional triggers and a sense of fairness that takes a seemingly rational
decision (leaving with some money is better than leaving with no money) and makes us behave irrationally. Most people walk away empty-handed, but with a sense that justice has been served, [...]
I used the phrase "seemingly rational". The paper you linked to used the word "rational" in quotes. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. I"'m sure if I wrote a few more paragraphs, I could have been clearer, but I sense that I'm "wordy" enough as is.
But it really doesn't matter to understand the analogy. The experiment expects that people will behave a certain way - call it rational, "rational", irrational, logical, stupid, expected, etc - it doesn't matter. The only thing that really matters is that the predicted result does not
factor in an emotional response.
The real result is obviously different than the expected result in that some people would still accept the low offer, but a significant percentage of the participants would not accept a low offer for any variety of emotional
reasons (spite, punishment, etc).
The reason I feel that this is analogous to the DLC issue is because I feel there are two main responses to DLC content:
Response #1 is similar to the expected
response above. The only thing that matters is "does this content have value to me". That's it. Emotional factors (such as, how much profit are they making? did they cut this content from the original game? etc) don't enter the decision making process.
Reponse #2 is similar to the real
response above. A significant portion of the gaming community uses emotional factors to color their decision making process.
That's it. That is ALL
I'm saying in regards to the ultimatum experiment. Personally, I feel that the first response makes the most sense. Others don't. Call response #2 the rational response if it helps. It doesn't affect the nature of the analogy. Two groups with two opinions based on two different criteria.*
*I'm sure that there are other groups, but the probably fall into one of the two groups above.
The MGS4 multiplayer packs were $15 and contained some regurgitated maps from the MGS3 online component. I also seem to recall having a harder time finding games after the DLC came out. That said, I wasn't directly citing that example, I was just rattling off the types of DLC scenarios that would be bad form. I was making up numbers to illustrate those scenarios, probably subconsciously drawing from my MGS4 experience. That's why it's abstract, not specific. Get it?
See, there's this notion of a hypothetical statement. You use this thing called "imagination" to consider abstract, representative scenarios that don't have to be concrete examples. A lot of times they begin with a word like "if", as in the statement you quoted. They're really quite useful, but only when the audience understands their purpose. Sorry I didn't tailor my message sufficiently for your level of understanding.
First of all, that sounds a lot like you're mocking me.
A simple "yes" would have been sufficient.
But seriously, I understand your 'abstract' concept. I just don't understand why you would base your opinion on hypothetical, "abstract" points, and "made up" numbers rather than on experience. In the context, I certainly don't think you can fault anyone for assuming that you were talking about real experiences...
ETA: By the way, that's an excellent paper in your link! Where'd you find it?