"Game theory studies interactive decision-making, where the outcome for each participant or "player" depends on the actions of all. If you are a player in such a game, when choosing your course of action or "strategy" you must take into account the choices of others. But in thinking about their choices, you must recognize that they are thinking about yours, and in turn trying to take into account your thinking about their thinking, and so on."
You may have heard of Nash Equilibrium (A Beautiful Mind) where the two players establish the actions that will be in both of their best interests. This is usually explained using the Prisoners Dilemma (see below)
Say Ben and Alice have both been arrested for the same crime and are being held in separate cells. They are questioned by the police and have the following options; confess or stay silent. What should each do?
If both confess they each get 1 year in prison, if both stay silent they get 3 years apiece. If one confesses and the other stays silent, the confessor gets 5 years and the other one goes free. Game theory explains what strategy each player should select to minimize their time in jail.
Click on the link below, watch the video from the British game show "Golden Balls" and answer the 3 questions in your response.
http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2012/04/20/golden-balls-game-theory-the-prisoners-dilemma-and-the-cold-rationality-of-human-behavior/
81 comments:
Tiffani Weir
6th Period
1. Sarah probably chose to steal because she didn’t think she could rely on Steve to choose split so she followed her natural instinct of self-preservation and chose steal to make sure that she would walk away with some money even if Steve didn’t. Her need or desire for the $100,000 was greater than her trust in Steve, so she decided to go with her instinct and make sure that she didn’t come out of the competition with nothing.
2. Steve wasn’t wrong, he was just trying to believe the best in Sarah by choosing split and deciding that he could convince her to split the money during the 1 minute discussion time; he shows more trust than Sarah in this case. I probably would have done what Sarah did, but maybe come to an agreement during the discussion time so that we could both come out with some money.
3. This situation is similar to an oligopoly in cartel nature because the companies can either reach an agreement and keep their word and split the profit, or they can undercut the other company and leave with all of the profits. Arguments between oligopolists often fall apart because the companies don’t really trust each other so they always try to get the bigger half of the profits and sometimes end up ruining the profits for the other companies.
1. Sarah stole the money probably because she felt that Steve wasn't reliable and wanted to make sure that no matter what she'd get money.
2. No steve wasn't wrong, he chose to see the best in Sarah and thought he could persuade her to split the money during the amount of time they had to discuss this, and hopefully both come out with something.
3. It is similar to oligopoly in cartel nature due to the fact that the companies in question can stay true to what they said and split their earnings, or go behind th other's back and take all of the money.
Allison Hermes
2nd Period
1) Sarah chose steal rather than collaborating with Steve to share the $100,000 because any fair person with faith in the justice of other people, including themselves in the pot, would pick to split, so no one have to whine all the way home with empty hands in their pockets. Considering most people of a certain society would believe in fairness, she would hope everyone picks split, but no one ever really does because we all want something more than what is attainable, even if we don't know it. Thus, she chose steal while he chose split because what gentleman wouldn't for a lady in mannered society, not necessarily civil? Steve obviously wanted the money more, so he trusted her ethics as a human in a society more than their own nature of I. Want. Stuff. Loser. Besides, aren't we all happier when we steal? We're winning aren't we? Isn't that all anyone wants: to be on the winning side? Oh, what risk a life is, or is life itself. Steve trusted too much in ethics while their was more reality in nature as id fights superego for an ego like Sarah's basically.
2) I wouldn't say Steve was completely wrong, even though would have been fairer to choose the same option. I probably would have done the same thing, giving the benefit of the doubt in people to be decent at least. They don't have to be good because that's to hard obviously. But Sarah could have at least been decent. Sure, $100,000 is better than $50,000, but it just doesn't seem all that efficient, but then I doubt this because too much of the same thing has no imagination until someone gets tired enough of it to change it, so maybe it does work. Split.
3)The choices made by Steve and Sarah relate to those faced by firms in olipolitic markets in how they must essentially decide to together for the well-being of all or use that groupthink to take it for themselves as a single-person monopoly instead because the group can't make its members as the members can make the group that way. Thus, collusive agreements oligopolists often fall apart because no one really wants to be the exactly same as everyone else. Sure, everyone may agree on a set price, but that does not mean everyone believes in it fully to always support it as they know to much about each other, almost making them pluralist, if not hyperpluralist, in how their choices are made because I doubt it was all a personal majority. It was just a bet because its hard to agree, so why bother disagreeing? That is basically why cartels like OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets their leaders agreed upon. It was pure appeasement, which never was going to work for Hitler either. These leaders were all just trying to please each other to please themselves, which means giving up more than some people really want to do. Only their brains decided the target while the heart has greater strength than an equilibrium or average can convey. No one agrees in appeasement, even if they support it because ideals aren't necessarily reality.
Amy Krauhs
Period 4
Paul Stallings
Period 6
1. Sarah chose to steal because she displayed Nash's theory that humans are self interested. She also may have believed that Steve could not be counted on and to do what is best for her. Her self interest outweighed her opponents need and she thus chose to steal.
2. Steve was not wrong to choose split. he trusted his opponent and placed faith in her. he went against Nash's theory. I would have tried to come to an agreement to split during the discussion period so that both come out with something.
3. This is similar to oligopolies and cartels in the way that they can either agree or disagree on a subject. This can lead to failure or success for the groups. They tend to fall apart due to a lack of trust that is present among groups. Cartels such as OPEC fail at achieving high price targets due to distrust and self interest that get in the way.
1. Sarah stole the money because was "stabbed in the back last time". Steve was 100% genuine when he said that he was going to split the money, but she still stole the money anyways.
2. No, Steve was not wrong to split. He was happy with going home with 50,000 pounds. In this situation, I would've believed Sarah too and gone with the split.
3. The decisions made by Steve and Sarah are similar to firms oligopolitic markets in that firms back-stab other companies after making a deal. This is exactly what happened in the recent OPEC meeting. All the members decided on selling the petroleum at a certain ceiling price, but Saudi Arabia started selling it at a much lower price, forcing other countries to lower their prices and slowing their development.
Patrick Stallings
Period-4
1. Sarah probably chose to steal all the cash because she is self interested. This is an example of Nash's theory. Sarah also may have believed that she could not count on Steve to also do what is best for her. Her self interest compelled her to steal the money and not worry about Steve's needs.
2. I do not personally think Steve was wrong to choose to split.Steve trusted that his opponent would make the right decision. Steve went against Nash's theory. I personally would have tried to come to an agreement to split during the period they could talk so we could each receive something.
3. This is very similar to oligopolies and cartels. These types of groups tend to fall apart due to a lack of trust that is present among groups. Cartels tend to fail because the self interest of one person can get in the way of the entire group.
Nikhil Njaravelil
Period 4
1. Sarah chose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000 because she is a “coldly rational, self-interested, deceptive creatures that would not hesitate to stab one another in the back to get what was best for themselves.” It was only possible for her to choose steal if she absolutely knew Steve was going to choose split because should Steve chosen steal, they both have not brought back the money home.
2. Steve’s decision is not wrong at all. In fact, his decision seems more human-like in terms of his kindness and will to share the money. On the contrary, Sarah is a self-interested creature who is determined to deceive anyone when something big is up for grabs. I would have threatened to use steal at the one minute discussion before the decision so Sarah would hesitate to use the steal, and choose split to share the money evenly. It is better for both Sarah and I to bring back something home rather than nothing.
3. The choices faced by Steven Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolistic market because one firm’s decision affects the response of its rival competitors. Collusive agreements between firms often fall apart because individual firms attempt to seek profit at their own interest, not to share happiness with others. Cartel such as OPEC often fails to achieve the high price targets agreed upon meetings of their leaders because individual attempt to attract more consumers by lowering their prices which consequently lowers the competitor’s price, bringing down the price of the entire market.
Joe Ridyard
Period 4
1) Sarah chose steal because it was obvious by the emotion in Steve's voice he was a good man and was going to split the money. And the way she acted it further compelled steve to believe she was going to split. So sarah knew steve was most likely to split, therefore sarah had the oppurtunity to take it all. Sarah didnt want to be stabbed in the back and take nothing so for pride reasons she would have rather taken on the risk of leaving with nothing due to both of them chosing steal rather than steve lying and stealing while she chose split.
2)Steve was wrong to convince her he was going to chose split, you could see it in his eyes he was being honest. The fact that he made it so obvious he would split made Sarah's decision to steal so much easier. If i was in that situation i would have chosen split, because steve looks like a nice guy and i never worry about money i could have earned had something gone a little different, i just pretend i never had the opportunity and therefore if i get something, good, if not... then I can just try to move on.
3) Because there is always that 1 person who decides they want more. Humans are greedy, and they think if they can get away with something then they will. OPEC didnt work because if one group decides to undercut then it ruins the whole things and prices fall apart.
Nevin Thomas
Period 2
1) Sarah decided to choose the steal because she lost trust in the opposite person, she was backstabbed before and decided to take matter in her own hands. If you made the same mistake once you wont make it again, which is what Sarah did.
2)I would have tried to split like steve because 50 grand is a lot of money. He was wrong to choose it because sarah looked less trustworthy and acted less trustworthy than him.
3)Agreements usually fall apart in these agreements because all people care about in the business world is big profits and rewards. Which happens when you take advantage of someone to get ahead, money is everything in business.
Manon Hughes
6th Period
1. Sarah's previous experience with being stabbed in the back when a lot of money was up for grabs is most likely why she did what she did, more so than picking a strategy per say.
2. I would have picked steal because my chances of winning and my expected value of winnings is better with said choice.
3. It is hard to say since most humans only look out for themselves when it comes to money.
Laura Luo pd 4
1) Sarah chose to steal the $100,000 rather than share with Steve because of Steve's comment! Steve stated he would "split" his money; therefore, this statement forced Sarah to think the possibility of her getting the money is slim. Her chances would be either none or less than $50,000. That thought scared her! While Steve trusted Sarah, Sarah backstabbed Steve. Like Nash said, we're all crude selfish people, and I can't blame Sarah for that. Money is very tempting and would sabotage a person's trust.
2)Steve was not wrong to split the money; however, he lost his money because he chose to SAY he would split. According to Nash's Equilibra, choosing to split was not within Steve's best interest because of the cost of losing his money. Despite Steve's good attempt to be honest and say he would split the money, I believe he should've persuade (or more rather "deceive") Sarah a little better. Those two individual should read Liar Game for any more inspiration/advice of trusting people like Nao and Akiyama.
3)In an oligopolitic market, firms collaborate in order to keep prices upward. Trust is essential in order for everyone to benefit from this collaboration. However, once some firm decides to be "selfish" and partake its own decisions, the oligopolitic market falls apart and soon the economy tumbles as a response. For instance, OPEC often fail to achieve to keep target prices high because some traitor arrived. Once that "traitor" goes off its own, going against the target prices decided at the conference, everyone in OPEC will follow along. It is expected there can be no such thing as trust, except by abandoning human selfishness and self-interest, and these traits are hard to get rid of.
Jennie Chen
Period 2
1) I believe that Sarah stole the money because she wanted revenge. It is human nature to want to even the board by revenge. As she was betrayed last time, she wasn't going to take any chances of losing her money this time. She said she felt bad, however, she was in it to win the money. She wasn't going to let it slip between her fingers again no matter who she was playing.
2) Steve wasn't wrong, he genuinely wanted what was the most fair, and that was to split it. He believed that he could convince her like he did himself that splitting would be the best thing to do. It's upsetting that he was back stabbed, but humans will always try and up each other regardless.
3) This is similar to the oligopoly in cartel because both companies needed to work together in order the succeed. If one takes all the money, then the other will fail. Trust is important as each one wants to thrive in business but can only do so if each company is willing to share and sacrifice for each other.
Karen George
6th period
1.Sarah did not trust Steve's word that he would split it because she had been fooled before. She thought it would happen again and did not want to take any risks. So, she chose to steal instead of splitting.
2. No, because he most probably learned from his mistakes and trusted that she would do the same thing. I probably would have picked steal since I know that she would pick steal since I messed things up last time.
3. Firms have to make decisions that will effect everyone and not themselves. If they make decisions that only benefit themselves then their company may not last. Collusive agreements often fall apart due to greed or revenge that prevents a partner from making the right decision. Cartels fail to meet high price targets because they find some sort of alternative to benefit themselves.
1.Sarah shows that human beings are self interested, and that they will do anything that keeps them away from harms way. It is a natural instinct. She did not want to get tricked twice. I would of done the same thing if I was put into her position.
2.Although he went home with no money, Steve was not wrong. He wanted to believe in Sarah's tears and act, so he did what he thought was right. I think I would of chose steal. Hypothetically, if I was so convince that Sarah was going to split, I would of seen this as my opportunity to take all the money. Granted, none of us would of won the money in this situation but at least I get the satisfaction that she didn't get away with all the money.
3.This situation is similar to what olipolitic firms go through because they have to decide whether to focus on the well being of others or just emphasize their own greed for power. When it comes to big companies I believe that it shouldn't have to deal with such risks, and that hopefully when the time comes, they stick with the decision they had planned.
-Jenifer Galan
4th
Tia Lal
2nd Period
1) Sarah convinces Steve that she is desperate for the guarantee of getting some money. She makes him believe that she is satisfied with only 50,000 pounds. Steve is content with just 50,000 pounds and readily agrees to choose split. Sarah chose steal to get the whole amount because she was sure that Steve would pick split.
2) I don’t think was totally wrong in choosing split because Sarah seemed genuinely desperate of some money. If I were in Steve’s place, I would pick split as well because she acted so genuinely. I would put some faith in Sarah’s word and her character.
3)Agreements between oligopolists often fall apart because firms can take advantage of the other firms’ trust and do something to only benefit their firm. The main goal of firms is to gain a profit, and they will do anything to achieve this goal. Agreements usually fail because the choices of all of the firms affect each other. There is always the possibility that one firm is lying and trying to gain all the profits.
1. Sarah stole, which proves Nash's theory on selfishness when it comes to humans. When you remove social stigma and judgment, people will do many shocking things, but in the end it all boils down to the same reason: self-interest.
2. Steve was not wrong. He chose the option that gave him the best chance at winning the sum of money, and it also would have helped Sarah if she chose split because they would both receive money. I would have chosen steal and told the other person that I would not choose split at all. I would tell them that the only ball I would choose is steal, and if they choose split, I would give them half of the money after the show. In the end the only option they would have to make money is to choose split, and then I would choose split as well. This guarantees that my opponent would choose steal and that I would walk away with money.
3. This part of the show is like an oligopoly because while in a utopian oligarchy, all companies would choose the same base price for their products and services, at least one company will always undercut and take the most profits.
Nima Faegh
4th Pd
Lynnie Dickson
Period 6
1) Sarah probably chose steal knowing that Steve was going to chose split. Choosing steal when there is a chance that the other player would also chose steal would create a chance that none players would go home with money. Unless Sarah was willing to take the chance of going home empty handed, she would have picked steal nevertheless. However, she knew that Steve would pick split and had full confidence in her actions.
2) Steve's actions reflected on his honest and kind-hearted personality. Because of his tender personality, he lost all of the money. However, in this scenario, Steve can only trust that Sarah is also acting with the goodness of her heart as well. However, I personally would have chosen steal. Or I would have used the same strategy that was used by Nick in the first video.
3) Humans are known to be selfish and greeding in obtaining what is the most beneficial for themselves. This is also true in both the case of Sarah and Steve and Oilgopolists. There are times that some oilgopolist will take advantage of the tendness of other companies and profit more than they should. This can cause conflicts, arguments, and eventually separations between large companies.
Amy Nguyen
Period 6
1. Sarah chose steal because Steve said that he was going to split. When saying that they are going to split the money, it makes them look less trustworthy and the other side becomes unsure. In addition, Sarah probably believes that humans are self-interested and she could not fully rely on Steve.
2. I do not believe Steve was wrong because I would have trust Sarah too. He did went against Nash's theory. One thing I would change about Steve's method is to focus more on persuading the person to split.
3. It relates to oligopolitic markets like OPEC and drug cartels by the fact that when people do not truly trust each other, the entire plan falls apart. In addition, it is also that one person or that one group who decides to go against what everyone says and the entire system falls apart like OPEC. Saudi Arabia keeps on lowering the gas prices, potentially destroying other companies who rely on oil.
Steve Philip
6th Period
1. Towards the end of the video it is said that Sarah had once played the game before and she trusted the contestant and lost all her money. She also might not have trusted Steve in their plan to split the money.
2. I don't think Steve was wrong in choosing to split the money. He probably trusted Sarah to do the right thing and split the money. If I was Steve, which I am coincidentally, I would have chosen to steal because Sarah looked kind of mischievous.
3. The decisions made by Steve and Sarah are similar to those of oligopolistic competition because all firms in the market wish to achieve their highest possible profits without being robbed by the other firms not following through on their promises in meetings. Sometimes these choices fall apart because each individuals will always want to maximize their profits and earn as much as they can.
Sheryl Machado
6th period
1. The theory that humans are self interested displays the choice clear choice Sarah made on Nash's theory. Basically Sarah's own self interest was way more initiated then with her partner, causing her to steal rather than split.
2. I don't think Steve was wrong to choose split, he did that because he trusted his opponent. In thee time given to discuss I would have come up with a solution to win the money and split it perfectly.
3. This same similar appears between oligoolies and cartels in whether they can agree or disagree on something. The reason why they fall out some much is not having trust in the group.
Sherin Johnson
6th period
1. Sarah chose to steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000 in her sense of greed and selfishness that trumps everything fair and civil. As Nash himself says, humans are coldly rational, self interested, and deceptive creatures that do whats best for them. Sarah embodies this sort of idea Nash has of people as she pulls a fast one and dominates the game by choosing to Steal.
2.Steve was not wrong to choose split and he was actually trying to do the game according to Nash's Equilibrium so that both individuals would at least get something in a fair and justly manner.
3. This scenario reflects the oligopolitic markets because one depends on the other. Sarah wanted the most profit and so she betrayed Steve. Similarly, firms too have also done such things in order to achieve their maximum profit.
Divya Joseph
6th Period
1.Sarah chose to steal because she felt like she couldn't rely on Steve and had her doubts towards him. So to to assure she would get money she choose steal.
2.Steve wasn't wrong for choosing to split the money. He just thought if she choose split they would both get the money. I would have split the money too.
3. This is similar to oligopoly because two people work together and it could lead to both loss or failure. The result is based on their choices. The two start falling apart or getting into conflicts trying to figure out what the other person is going to choose.This is why Cartels like OPEC fail.
Timothy Krauhs
Period 6
1. Sarah most likely chose to steal because she simple doesn't trust Steve with splitting it which is reasonable to want to make sure she still gets money.
2.Steve by picking spilt shows a more trusting character and wanting to make sure everyone won. If I was in this position I would have picked steal because I to paranoid to thank he was actual going to spilt.
3. This show is similar to if alike to oligopoly because companies have to reach a contract to spilt profit or they can damage one other tell there is no profit. These usually fall apart because trust in business deals is a dangerous thing because you never know how someone will use that trust.
1) Sarah probably chose to steal becasue it is in our human nature to do anything in order to get ahead. Also she probably wanted the whole 100%
2)Steve wasn't totally wrong but was too trusting.
3) I would have done the exact same thing as sarah but make the other person think that there was a 100% chance that i would split with them so that i could steal the money without any competition. Then not give them any.
Jacob John
Period 6th
1. Sarah chose to steal because she is a selfish and greedy person. She deceived Steve by acting as an innocent little girl and lied. She didn't want to lose so badly that she went to an extreme extent.
2. Steve was right in his decision. He stuck to his word and did what he said he was going to do. It is just sad to see that people can be as deceiving as Sarah was.
3. This situation is similar to an oligopoly in cartel nature because the companies can either reach an agreement and keep their word and split the profit, or they can undercut the other company and leave with all of the profits. These groups often fall apart because one individual is selfish and wants all the wealth. Trust is a big issue.
Julie Joy
period 6
1. Sarah probably chose steal because she had a huge feeling that Steve would listen to her and pick split, so she was being selfish and wanted all of the money but in the end she felt terrible.
2. Either way whatever he did pick in the end Sarsh's decision was probably always steal so he would not have left with any money from the beginning.Even if he changed his mine to steal because then both of them wouldn't get money.
3.It is similar to oligopoly in cartel nature due to the fact that the companies in question can stay true to what they said and split their earnings, or go behind the other's back and take all of the money.
Elyssa Buntzel
4th pd.
1. Sarah stole the money because of something that happened earlier in the show. She mentioned that Steve lied to her and therefore she could no longer trust him. I think it was a mix of greed and mistrust.
2. He wasn't totally wrong. He really trusted Sarah to also choose the split ball. I probably would have convinced the other player to choose split like the updated video on the website. That seems like a guarantee.
3. It is similar in that they never are sure who they can trust or who is going to go behind their backs. Overall, their arrangements are most likely to fall through because of the amount of distrust and undercuts.
1. Nash's self interest theory can explain why sarah chose to steal rather than split. She believed her need was greater than others so she chose to steal.
2.In a way steve was wrong to split as he should have known to not trust his opponent. Its only natural that his opponent would steal.
3. It is similar to oligopoly in way that they both choose their own decisions and try to make their opponent or rival to comply to it. The agreement either breaks down or goes well.
-Amitabha Mitra
6th Period
Bethany Williams, Period 2
1. Sarah chooses to steal the money because she felt that she couldn't rely on Steve to split the money. Also, the emotion in Steve's voice made it seem that he was genuinely going to choose split so she decided that she could steal the money and go home with it all.
2. Steve wasn't wrong for choosing split because he said that was what he was going to do, and he chose to put faith in Sarah, hoping she'd do the same.
3. This is similar to oligopolitic markets because the companies can choose to split profits, or choose to go behind the other companies back and take all the profits. Sarah is like the companies who says she'll do one thing and then does the other to benefit herself, instead of benefitting all parties involved.
Christian Do
Period 4
1) Sarah chose to steal because she didn't think steve was trustworthy to split the money, therefor her desire for the money is greater than her trust in steve.
2) Well I don't think steve is wrong as he chose to trust in sarah and therefore both have an opportunity to come out with something. That was his best option in my opinion.
3) Their decisions are very similar to oligopoly in which companies can either form an agreement in which they all can profit, or one company can go and get all the money as seen in OPEC right now where Saudi Arabia is lowering their gas prices to run out the rest of the competition.
Alyssa Wilson
6th Period
1. Sarah placed a higher value on the amount of money she could win by stealing than she did in her trust for Steve to split the moeny wit her.
2.No, Steve wasn't wrong, he just trusted in Sarah to be as kind as he was and to want them both to walk out as winners.
3. The situations are similar because one persons greed can always either lead to the next persons downfall or their own demise, but the need to have more than everyone else blinds people from seeing that if they just compromise we can all benefit.
Reeba Mathew
Period 6th
1. Sarah choose to steal because she was greedy.She could have just split the money but she tricked Steve into choosing split.
2. Steve is to blame for his descion. He should have known that most humans are greedy and therefore never have taken Sarah for her word.
3. This is similar to oligopoltic markets because the companies depend on each other to make the right decision. Its all about making the most money
Tom King
6th Period
1. Its Sarah's dominant strategy. It ensures that you either walk away with everything or nothing as opposed to split which gives you half or nothing
2.Yes. I would've convinced Sarah I was going to steal and then split with her after the game but I wouldn't keep my promise.
3.The negotiations always result in arguments. Since the decision of one individual affects everyone else, they have to change their decisions in order to work better with the new system. People try and predict what others will choose and therefore have a crisis. OPEC has the same problem since they can't reach a common ground. One person always lowers the price of oil in order to maximize profits and other follow up. Eventually a situation similar to today comes around.
Fabian Romo
4th period
1.Sarah stealing the money is an example of Nash's self interest theory and explains why she would rather have the money all to herself than to split it. She believed that her need was greater and she did not trust Steve so she decided to steal the money.
2.I don't believe Steve was wrong, he only trusted Sarah to also choose to split. I probably would've chosen to split and come up with a solution for both of us to split the money the best way possible.
3. This situation is similar to oligopoly's because they too are the same way. They can either agree to split the profit with one another or can "steal" and leave with all the profit themselves.
Kiana Anthony-Poindexter
6th period
1) I believe Sarah chose to steal instead of split with Steve based on the fact she was manipulating the game to play wholly in her favor, which although selfish, is tactical genius.
2) Steve wasn't wrong to split per se, rather he shouldn't have placed so much faith in believing that Sarah would actually be 100% willing to split with him without having her own agenda.
3) I'm not aware of the meaning of "oligopolistic markets" but I do know how the human mind works in regards to greed of money. Organizations such as OPEC are comprised of masses of greedy people who want/need wealth. Its pretty common that if one were to steadily gain something that gives them power and there was competition in keeping that power, that one would become selfish to try and monopolize that right. No matter if the reasoning behind it was righteous or not
Christian Beduya
Period 6
1) Sarah chose to steal because she didnt trust Steve to split, so to save herself she decided to steal. From the moment the options were laid in front of her, she knew she did not want to go home empty handed, so her basic desire for money was more than her trust with Steve.
2) During the discussion time, Steve made the decision to try and believe in Sarah to split the money with him. Therefore, Steve wasn't wrong to do what he did.
3) The issue is similar to an oligopoly in cartel nature because all the companies can come to an agreement or not. Such arguments like these usually tear down the companies trust within one another.
Jonathan Winfiele
2nd Period
1. What Sarah did was place a much higher value of money that she could win by stealing that reeling and trusting that steve would split the money with her.
2. Steve was not wrong at all, he trusted in Sarah to be just as giving as he was to split the money so that they both be walk out with winnings.
3. The situations are very similar because they are vice versa. One person is greedy and wants can benefit them but lead to a persons downfall, but in the need and wants of some can blind the person into seeing everyone else needs
Joshua Joseph
6th Period
1. I believe Sarah stole the money because she knew any person would choose split if it is decided upon so the money will go to both of them not just one.
2. Steve wasn't wrong, he believed that in the end they would both split the money for that is what most people decide o do.
3. This is very similar to oligopoly and cartel because everything has to do with trust. Trust is a large issue in the world and groups such as the cartel tend to fall apart due to lack of trust.
Zachary Frazier
2nd Period
1. Sarah stole the money because of something that happened earlier in the show. She mentioned that Steve lied to her and therefore she could no longer trust him. I think it was a mix of greed and mistrust.
2.No, Steve wasn't wrong, he just trusted in Sarah to be as kind as he was and to want them both to walk out as winners
3.This situation is similar to oligopoly's because they too are the same way. They can either agree to split the profit with one another or can "steal" and leave with all the profit themselves.
Celine De Leon
2nd Period
1.) Sarah stole beacuse she has more trust in herself than any one else does. She doesn't trust Steve as much as she trust herself.
2.) Steve was not wrong because he had trust in someone else which tends to happen in multiple situations.
3.) Oilgopolistic markets are similar beacuse they too can spit or steal thr profits.
1. Sarah chose to steal because she knew that Steve was money hungry and would want the for sure 50k. she preyed on his weakness and keep all the money to her self. She knew what would entice Steve to split and she pounced on that opportunity.
2. Steve was right to split because he felt as though if they both chose to steal they both will go home empty handed so he chose to trust that she would do the right thing. And if I was in his situation I probably would have picked split as well.
3. It is true to oligopoly because you have to have faith in your partner. And sometimes you get let down because you had to much faith in the to start with.
Jocelyn Dang
6th Period
1)Sarah's main motive was to earn some money from this game, and it was only the matter of how much she would leave with. So, rather than relying on someone else, who she successfully convinced to split the money with, she went for it all to try and get as much as she could win. Thus, she chose to steal.
2)Though Steve got the worse end of the deal, he wasn't entirely wrong for trusting Sarah. He used his heart to make a decision and believed in Sarah's genuine need for money. However, in situations that involve money, money can cause someone to do or say anything if it means winning it. So, he was a bit naive in this case. If I were in the same situation, I would have chose to split too and trust in an equal win.
3)In any oligopoly, the firms involved are driven by money, not necessarily the contentment of the other firms. So, receiving the most profit is their priority. Thus, firms may sabotage or make decisions that negatively affect the others, but give themselves a boost. Thus, when all firms cannot be profitable, the oligopoly falls apart and no one ends up profitable.
Bryan Nguyen-Le
1) Sarah probably stole so that she could get 100% of the profist and so that she wouldnt have to rely on someone else
2) Steve was wrong in trusting Sarah to split the money. People are always out for themselves and this time was no different
3) This is similar to oligopolies in that they must come to a purely spoken agreement and must then honor thier word
Skylar Romo
Period 4
1) Sarah could tell by looking at the way Steve acted and spoke that he truly had the intention to split, it was a comforting feeling knowing he was almost guaranteed to split. The fact that he looked so honest and genuine, it made Sarah realize that it was a safe bet if she steals she will walk away with an extra $50,000. Sarah was greedy and decided since the opportunity was available, she took it.
2) In his situation i would have split, it was a lot of money and i would have been happy to leave with half, it was a fair amount and would have left without guilt for stealing that poor girls money. Additionally, her expressions and tone suggested she was nervous about him not splitting which makes it seem likely that she would split, therefore making it easier to split.
3) It is similar because if one person is greedy it can take down the whole system. Its like if 1 decides to steal it would force the other to steal to prevent one walking off laughing with all the market, therefore starting a free fall in prices, just like if they both steal all the money they could have had if they weren't greedy is all lost.
Lillian Nguyen
Period 2
1. Sarah chose to steal because she was afraid that he would not split with her. She did not trust him, so she decided to not split. Even though Nash believes that people are driven by self-interest, I believe that Sarah was driven by distrust.
2. No, Steve was not wrong for splitting. For him, he thought that it would be better for them to walk out with something rather than only one person. He trusted his opponent. I would have split. Even though there is a potential for the other person to say steal, I like to give people a benefit of a doubt. Plus, I would feel slightly guilty if the other person said split, and I said steal.
3. The oligopolitic markets resemble Steve and Sarah as they must trust each other in what each other say that they will do and do as they say. However, certain companies do not trust one another and do the opposite, which harms the other companies. The cartels in OPEC do not reach the high price targets as companies do not trust one another to not lower their price of oil.
1.) Sarah chose to steal rather than collaborate because she had already been stabbed in the back prior to the golden ball game with Steve. Her want for the money and fear of being backstabbed again took over her decision.
2.) Steve was not wrong to choose split because 50,000 pounds is still a lot of money to walk away with when you started with nothing. In my case I would have picked steal because it is so easy for someone to sit in front of you and lie in your face so you walk away with nothing while their walking away with their pockets full. Instead of me walking away with nothing, I'd rather us both walk away with nothing.
3.) The choices made by Steve and Sarah are similar to oligoposts because it is easy for people to come to a decision but to with words but when there is a more beneficial action that can be taken than the one you agreed on then people will begin to back stab.
Ryan Igbinoba
4th Period
Shivani Doshi
Period 2
1. Sarah's choice to choose steal was probably partially greed and caution. Humans are structured to think of themselves before anyone else, as a result she wanted all the money to herself rather than splitting it with someone. On the other hand, like she said towards the end, she did not want to be stabbed in the back again, which caused her to choose the Steal ball.
2. No, Steve was not wrong in choosing split because if he had chosen Steal then we would have walked away with noting in each scenario. At least with split he gave him self a chance that he would walk away with something.
3. This is similar to the oligopoly and cartels in a way that they can either agree or disagree on a subject. More over, the OPEC company can not reach high achieving price targets due to self-interest and distrust.
1. Game theory is the mathematical conclusion that all decisions made are ultimately done for an individual's best interest. Sarah, then, stole because she believed that it was in her best interest to steal. She believed that the opportunity cost of not stealing, or relying on Steve to split, was not desirable. These selfish decisions is the bases of our evolution as a species.
2. Although Steve chose a split, his decision making is still based on game theory. Looking at the probabilities of the game, choosing steal has the highest chance of walking away with no money. If either player chooses split, money will be earned. The more steals that are chosen, the less money will be rewarded. Steve believed that Sarah too would choose split, for it is, according to probability, the most rewarding.
3. This is similar to an oligopoly in cartels because there exists the same scenarios. Both agreeing on a certain price target and both make profits, or one may undercut the other and gain full profits. However, if both undercut each other they make minimal profits. This goes with the concept that there always exists one person who sees opportunity within agreements. Agreements are the ultimate con and thus almost never work.
Minh Le
Period 4
1. Sarah chose to steal because she was greedy and also doubted Steve to do the right thing and split. 100,000 dollars is a good amount of money and is simply just more attractive then splitting it with a complete stranger and only taking home 50 thousand dollars. On the plane ride home, I'd feel alot better about myself taking home 100,000 dollars than 50,000. If any one of us were in Sarah's shoes, we would've likely done the same thing.
2. Steve was not totally wrong to choose split because there was still a chance to win 50,000 dollars. He put his trust in Sarah to do the right thing for both of them because if they both chose split, they both would've won money. Personally, I would go with Sarah and choose steal every single time. I'll either get all the money or none at all.
3. It is similar to oligopolitic markets because if you're a company and you're negotiating with another company, you're never completely, 100% sure that they will stay true to their word. In these negotiations, both companies say that they want the best for BOTH companies, but deep down inside, each want everything for themselves. Alot of negotiations fall apart, because companies listen to their inner self and choose to take all of the profits or business for themselves and screw over the other company. They don't fully trust each other which is why many deals fall apart at the last minute before it is agreed upon and put into effect.
Jeffrey Zhou
6th
Carlo Torres
2nd Period
1. Sarah chose to steal for self interest. She, down to the roots, deceived Steve in order to up her chances of getting the whole prize.
2. Steve wasn't wrong, he was just wronged by deception. He saw a mutual benefit between each other, and kept to it.
3. This situation is similar to an oligopoly because companies question each other to make sure that there is a mutual foundation, when really there are backstabbers in the trade. With no trust, the oligopoly will crumble.
AMANDA SHAH
PERIOD 4
1)I think she chose to steal because she was a liar and it once he promised she decided to go with steal.
2)I feel really bad for Steve, but no matter what Steve decided to pick STEAL or SPLIT he would have lost because of Sarah's choice to be a greedy pig. If I was in Steve's situation I honestly have no idea what I would do.
3)Yes I can see why collusive agreements between oligoplists fall apart. They do not fully trust each other and are always on the watch to see if they will betray them. And you can never really know what the other oligoplist will do until they do it. I think cartels fail to achieve the high price targets because they are so paranoid and I understand why.
Brian Huynh
Period 4
1) Sarah chose steal because she did not trust Steve. Steve could have been lying from the start. So by choosing steal, she would have a better chance to get money.
2) It's hard to say if he was wrong or right. From a society standpoint he was right. However in this game show, can you really trust the Sarah to choose split? Can Sarah trust Steve he will pick split? In the discussion I would've talked more or threaten to pick steal.
3) This game shows that this stuff actually happens in the real world. This situation is very similar to oligopoly because it is 100% based on trust. If one company chooses to lower prices, than they are considered the "Stealer." And by that it ruins the whole point of oligopoly. This is very similar to what is happening to gas prices. Because gas is a necessity, all the gas companies can simultaneously increase the gas prices and can return to the normal gas prices. However, you will have that one company that will lower the price a few cents to get better sales. When that happens other gas companies will do the same and it just becomes an endless pit because gas companies are here to make money.
Justin Freker
Period 4
1.I think that Sarah chose to steal because she had nothing to loose. The way she saw it is she could either have a chance to win 50,000 and nothing. Or 100,000 and nothing. since the worst possible outcome is the same she just chose to steal.
2. Steve just got unlucky because he was probably assuming that Sarah was going to split. Since Steve chose to split it just made it seem that he made the wrong decision. I would have done what Sarah did because you really cannot trust anybody with money.
3. this relates to the problems faced by firms because the companies will come to an agreement to stay at one price So they can basically all get profit. However, since this is human nature to try to make the greatest profit to yourself with no regard to anyone else, the companies will change their prices despite the agreement just to make more profit.
Kimberly Mendez
Period 4
1.) Sarah probably stole the money because she couldn't trust Steve and would rather win all the money than get left with nothing at all. She perfectly represents human's "every man for themselves" mentality and the innate self-interest people have.
2.) No, I don't believe that Steve was wrong because he had trust in Sarah and wanted for both of them to leave with money. However, he should have read Sarah's face and come to the conclusion that she was NOT going to split money. So, unfortunately his defect was trusting too easily.
3.) This situation is similar to oligopolies and cartels in the sense that one decision can drastically alter the other's outcome. Trust is a key ingredient, yet lack of trust is clearly much more evident than the trust. Also, the greed in people hinders the productivity and negotiations of organizations like those.
Luke Emery
6th Period
1) Sarah chose to steal the money because she was trying to maximize her chances of getting the money. She convinced her partner to split, and deceived him so that she could get the money herself.
2) I think he was wrong to choose split because in the game, you really can't trust anyone. The name of the game is to try to win the money, and people will make up anything to win it all. I would have chosen steal for sure.
3) This is similar to an oligopoly because companies can decide to make an agreement and stick to it so they can both be benefited, or one company can decide to steal and get all of the profit.
Christine Nguyen
period 6
1. By choosing to steal, Sarah is not really risking anything. If Steve decides to steal as well, then she will end up with nothing–the same as if she had chosen to split while he stole. However, if she steals while he splits, she stands to win much more than if they both split.
2. By choosing to split, Steve assumed that Sarah would do the same. This was a faulty assumption, as she stood to win more by stealing rather than splitting. In that situation, I would have chosen to steal because I would have the opportunity to win a lot more money.
3. In an oligopoly, firms must make decisions based on what they think others will do. The same is true in this situation, where Sarah and Steve must consider what the other will choose. Cartels might fail to reach price targets because the firms may not trust each other entirely, and try to take advantage of each other and go back on their agreement.
1. Sarah most likely chose to steal because her self-preservation caused her to choose the better choice rather than to go home with nothing. She followed her instinct so that she would have some money to take home since she did not completely trust Steve.
2. Steve wasn't wrong at all, he was just being optimistic in regards towards Sarah, thinking he could convince her to choose split during the discussion time. I would probably have done what Steve did... I mean, it would have been great to go home with money but I'd be fine without it. So I would've done Steve's method by trusting in Sarah to split.
3. This situation is similar to oligopoly in cartel nature because the companies can either reach an agreement, keep their word, split the profit... or they can undercut and rake in all the profits. Since there is no love lost and rarely any trust between the companies, this method often falls apart. As seen in OPEC in which one oil company decides to start giving cheaper oil, which rakes in the profits.
Tosin Olabinjo
4th period
1. Based on what they were saying in the video it seems that Sarah has played the game before, either with the same guy or someone else. It appears that the last time she played she was convinced to split, the other stole, and she went home with nothing. My guess is that she didn't want that to happen again and could tell that Steve was completely set on splitting. She apparently wanted a sure chance at all the money and didn't want to be tricked out of the money again.
2. I don't think he was completely wrong to pick split. With a sum that large if they had split they could both be sure to be going home with a life-changing amount of money. I think I may have done what he did in his situation. I'm quick to trust people who seem honest and i would feel terrible if I stole from the other player.
3. Steve and Sarah's situation shares many similarities with those of oligopolistic markets. In both cases the participants need to think about what the others will do and act accordingly. In both cases they have to understand that the others are completely capable of acting outside of any original agreements for their own personal gains. This is why cartels like OPEC often fail to meet their high price targets. There will always be someone willing to undersell in order to gain a hold on a majority of the market.
Cameron Molfetto
Period 4
1) Sarah chose to steal because she believed that Steve could not be counted on. She didn't know if he would do what was best for her. Therefore her self-interest overpowered her trust in Steve and she stole the money.
2) Steve was not wrong. He chose to see the best in Sarah and trust that she was a good person, however this led to his demise.
3) This is similar to oligopoly in cartel nature because the companies can either choose to trust other companies and split the money, or put their self-interest in front and take it all.
1. In my opinion it was more benifical for Sarah to steal as it would walk away with 100,000 pounds or 50,000 pounds more. Eventhough there was a 50% chance that Steve would choose steal and that none of them would benefit. As Elijah said we must assume that Steve’s choice is random, and that Sarah will choose steal. We can assume that she will win 0 or the full amount of 100,000. However it could also be done the other way round.
2.Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
Steve was folllowing his human instinct and believed that it was right so share, however he was conned by Sarah. John Nash’s cold rational behaviour, didn’t play out in this case, as Steve was affraid of what the public would think of him. However Sarah did match John Nash’s cold behaviour. The safer option for the two would be to split, and that is what Steve chose to do. However Sarah decided to be cold and chose steal.
3. If we start to compare their choices to oligopoly. We could state that this is an competitive olipoly however it could turn collusive, specifically formal collusive. Steve has negotiated with Sarah an agreed output for Sarah but not for himself.
Briona Caruthers
6th Period
Samantha Fonseca
4th period
1. I think Sarah chose to steal because she was able to easily convince Steve that she would split the money with him. Knowing that he was sincere about splitting, she had the power over him to steal because he was gullible and wouldn't have tried to take all the money and was okay with only half.
2. Steve wasn't wrong for choosing split but he should have been more aware of the situation that he was in. Sarah had played the game before and left with nothing because her opponent lied and stole the money. She was afraid that this would happen again so her actions of stealing to play it safe was predictable. I dont know what I would do if I was in that situation. There isn't really a way to work with someone who is so paranoid and afraid of having the money taken away from them. People like that make irrational decisions and choose steal to protect themselves and leave with all the money or stop the opponent from walking away with everything. Any way of approaching this situation was just end with her choosing steal in fear.
3. These choices are similar to those faced my firms in oligopolitic markets because all decisions are based on trust. Cartels often fail to achieve high prices because the firms are unable to come to an agreement and make decisions that only benefit themselves rather than everyone in the situation.
1. Sarah stole the money because she didn't trust steve and wanted a chance to win the money. She was trying to protect herself because she didn't trust Steve in what he said he would do.
2. I think that steve was right to choose split. Choosing split gave him the mindset that he would walk away with some money if Sarah picked split too. If he would have picked steal, they both would go home with nothing, which would be bad for them both.
3. This is just like the oligopoly situations because people agree on something, but always want more in the end. They want to guarantee high profit and don't care who they hurt in the end because they will get more than others. Its all about greed and not letting others get the best of you.
Krista Killam
Period 6
Cecil Sabu
period 4
1- Well, Sarah ended up of gaining more money and levae with nothing or go with money in two ways, by either get 50,000 or by been more ambitious and try to get 50,000 more, meaning to try to leave with 100,000. Therefore, Sarah was smart and decided to create a close bond with Steve, who also wanted money, they were both planning to settle this money for their both benefits,but Sarah wanted it all, so finally Sarah ended up goin with all the money.
2- I think Steve was right about choosing the split, since he made an easy way to get money. He knew there was a high probablility that Sarah would choose the 50/50. I think if I was so close to getting the 100,000 I would have gone for it. However, Sarah was faster and more ambitious and took it all.
3- Oligopoly relates to Steve and Sarah as they can both agree to settle a split of the money for both of them or simply just go for all and take everything. On the other hand, OPEC usually fails to achieve the high price targets agreed by the heads of the group because if it sets the price and individual actors end up lowering prices. therefore , they never gain money. This is a strategy game of pair up and be fair are be ambitious and take it all and destroy the rest.
Jacqueline Gann
Period 2
1) Sarah chose to steal because she thought that she couldn't rely on Steve to split the pot because of past experience. She wanted to make sure she went home with some money.
2) Steve was not wrong to choose split because he truly believed that Sarah was going to split the pot because he placed trust in his opponent. I would have made the same decision as Steve and hoped my opponent would keep his/ her word.
3)This is similar to an oligopoly because a decision by one player in this game influences what happens to both of the player, similar to the actions of a seller in an oligopoly market. Agreements in these markets tend to fall apart because of distrust between its members. Self interest in these situations cause the high price targets not to be reached.
1) At the end of the video, Sarah reflects on her past experience with backstabbing. She claims that she "couldn't go through it again," so naturally, she was greedy for the money to compensate for her past loss. She probably also thought that she's be successful in convincing Steve to pick "split," and took advantage of his honesty and reassurance.
2. Steve wasn't wrong to choose split. He knew Sarah counted on him from the start. He was being selfless and generous, but unfortunately, he did not see that Sarah was manipulating him. I would have done the same thing he did; I would want to ensure that both parties get at least some money evenly.
3. Firms in oligopolitic markets face a lot of give and take situations and are forced to make compromises among their competitors to ensure that all the businesses within the oligopoly remain intact. Cartels like OPEC probably don't achieve high price targets because the individual member companies are unfortunately motivated by their own self-interests and will probably take the route to the most money for themselves, despite it being at the expense of others.
Yvonne Thong 2nd
George Waterous
Period 4
1. Sarah did what she thought was best for her. Not only did she not trust her partner, but also, she was motivated by greed.
2. For me, Steve made the right decision. He chose to have faith in his partner. His option to split also speaks volume of his good kindhearted nature to share rather than be controlled by greed and money. I would have done the same as Steve.
3. It relates greatly to the oligopolistic markets because self-interest or even national interest can cloud ones judgment for the greater good and one greedy decision can come with a whole bunch of negative consequences.
Lindsey Jones
2nd period
1. Sarah mentioned that she has been stabbed in the back before in the past rounds, and she let that twist her judgement and ultimately betray Steve. It goes to show you that not only past betrayals, but also greed will turn someone into a cruel person. Sarah could have split the money with Steve because everyone knows that even 50,000 pounds worth of British money is a lot of money, but instead of realizing the consequence of stealing that money, Sarah did something completely cruel and inconsiderate. Now, the world, whoever sees this episode, will know her true colors despite how sweet and innocent she looks.
2. Morally, I believe that Steve had the right intentions, just like anyone else on the show who believes splitting a large amount of money is right. I was honestly moved by Sarah's "innocence," so I would have fallen for it also. However, if I had known that she would betray me like that, I would have chosen steal also because she would not have deserved it. Sarah may have the money, but she has shown herself to be a cruel and unkindly person in front of the whole world, taking advantage of Steve's common sense and kindness.
3. Agreements faced between firms and oligopolistic markets often fail because both groups have their own economic goals. The goals of the firms might tackle the oligopolistic market's goals. Just like what is occurring now with OPEC, oil cartels are not agreeing with the standard price in regard to the amount of oil being dug up, and as a result, oil prices here is $1-$2 a gallon, which will lead to people losing their jobs, structurally.
Todd Podbielski
6th
1) Sarah choose to steal because she believed Steve would steal. However as much as she trusted that he would split she still believed she needed the money more so she went for the steal.
2) He was wrong in that he gave himself up so much. He made her truly believe with body language, what he said, everything, that he would split. Which gave her the confidence to steal.
3)In an oligopoly cartel businesses can either make agreements, stay true, and split profits, or undermine the other side and take all the profits. This is why arguments often fall apart because there is no trust between companies because of individuals companies desire to make the most money possible.
Caitlin Davis
Period-2
1. I believe Sarah stole the money because she said she was stabbed in the back before, despite the fact that Steve was being honest when he said that he would split the money. Sarah didn't want to take the chance.
2. I don't think Steve was wrong for choosing to split the money. He wasn't being greedy and thought that going home with 50,000 was better than nothing. I probably would have split the money if i were in his situation as well.
3. This is similar to oligopoly because firms often only have themselves in mind and do things for their own benefit, which is very similar to what recently happened in the OPEC meeting.
Annie Jiang
Period 4
1. Sarah chose steal because she had been stabbed in the back before and lost all of her money in the past, so she didn't want that to happen again. So this time she made 100% sure that her collaborator was going to choose the split ball in order for her to choose the steal ball and get all the money. She did not want to be played again.
2.Steve wasn't totally wrong to choose split because it seemed like Sarah was genuinely going to choose split. In this situation, I would have chosen to split because I believed Sarah's act. I would feel too bad if I chose the steal ball after Sarah said she would choose the split ball.
3.An oligopolistic market is a market dominated by a small number of sellers. These firms have to decide to make business transactions either best for themselves or for the market as a whole. These firms aren't run by the government. Therefore, each firm can take one another out through lying and foul play. Collusive agreements fall apart because there will always be one person who doesn't trust other people or are consumed by greed, which will result in a dominant firm that destroys the other business. Cartels like OPEC often fail to achieve high prices because the other firms will most likely set their prices lower due to the fact of greed and wanting higher personal sales, so OPEC or any other cartels will have to keep low prices to maintain competition.
Joel Thomas
Period 4
1.) Sarah probably didn't want to rely on Steve's decision to split because it was probably a ploy for him to steal all the money although it really wasn't.
2.) Steve made the right choice to choose split if he could believe Sarah. Unfortunately Sarah couldn't trust Steve and there was a guarantee that Sarah would get everything or half because Steve would always choose split. I would have chose steal because you would either get all or nothing, leaving the opponent to get nothing or nothing; leaving you always a winner.
3.) In a group of people that plan to meet a standard set by all, theirs always one out liar that wants to receive more and break the bond they make; but they always gain.
Brayden Theriot
4th Period
1) At the end of the video, Sarah reflects on her past experience with backstabbing. She claims that she "couldn't go through it again," so naturally, she was greedy for the money to compensate for her past loss. She probably also thought that she's be successful in convincing Steve to pick "split," and took advantage of his honesty and reassurance.
2. Steve wasn't wrong to choose split. He knew Sarah counted on him from the start. He was being selfless and generous, but unfortunately, he did not see that Sarah was manipulating him. I would have done the same thing he did; I would want to ensure that both parties get at least some money evenly.
3. Firms in oligopolitic markets face a lot of give and take situations and are forced to make compromises among their competitors to ensure that all the businesses within the oligopoly remain intact. Cartels like OPEC probably don't achieve high price targets because the individual member companies are unfortunately motivated by their own self-interests and will probably take the route to the most money for themselves, despite it being at the expense of others.
Troy Lilly
period 6
1. Sarah chose to steal because she either trusted him to split and wanted it all, or she didnt trust him and did not want to give him all the money. She would either win big or not let a liar win at all.
2.Yes. Like the video we watched in class portrays, I would have convinced her i was going to steal therefore giving her the idea to split.
3.It is similar due to the fact that each person or company interested in money will want the best for themselves and this may cause distrust between each group.
Zoheb Hirani
4th Period
Thank you so much for picking this Mr. Pye!!! This was freaking awesome!
1) I think that Sarah just really didn't want to be on the split side while being stolen from, so she chose the steal version. I think that even though you can apply game theory here, it still just goes back to Sarah's emotions and how she hates to be backstabbed.
2) Steve was wrong because Sarah stole. Steve should have just persuaded Sarah that he was going to steal, just like in the first video. You have to persuade people that you will steal and get them to be established that splitting is the very best option.
3) Small companies with small numbers of leaders often have a lot more power, so the decisions of one person can often lead to situations like these. If one person wants to grab all the money, they have the power to do so.
Yash Mathur
6th period
1) I think Sarah made the decision because having tricked before and taking the risk again would have been tough.In result the best option for her was to steal it.
2)Steves intentions were not wrong, the way he went about the process was. Instead of being as truthfull as he was he should have tricked her a little bit. to make her split too.
3) they are both very simular due to the fact that trust issues was the main problems, and when money is involves greed usually steps in place
Rachel Chang
2nd period
1) Sarah chose to steal because Steve initially told her that he would split. If he is reliable, by choosing to steal, she would walk away will all of the money. However, she was probably afraid that if she chose to split as well and Steve was actually lying the entire time, then HE would win all the money, and she would feel guilty for trusting in him.
2) I do not think that Steve was completely wrong, but he did luck out. What happened was that Steve demonstrated more trust in Sarah than Sarah in him. He was hoping to convince her to split as well during their discussion period, but Sarah turned on him and stole. I probably would have done what Sarah did, though.
3) The decisions made by Steve and Sarah mirror those made by oligopolies in that they must work together to reach a conclusion. The money in dispute would be their profits, and they must decide how to split/steal the money.
1. Sarah stole because you can't trust people. she was either leaving with money or nobody was leaving it anything.
2.Steve wasn't wrong for choosing split. He simply had faith that they would both split and stick to their word. He was true to his word and split. However Sarah did not.
3.The choices faced by Steven and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolistic market because one firm’s decision affects the response of its rivals.
Taylar-Jayde Dodwell
6th Period
Justin Hoang
6th Period
1) I think Sarah chose to steal because she knew Steve was a man of his words which was going to split the money. Therefore, she was smart and only care for herself and took advantage of the situation to steal the $100,000.
2) I believe Steve is genuinely a good person therefore; he had trust in Sarah to split the money as well. So Steve was not wrong to choose split. Personally, I would have chose steal because in life you can’t trust anybody.
3) In both situations, individuals must make decisions based on what others might do. Such agreements often fall apart because the dominant strategy for the individual companies is to maximize their own profits.
Muizz Soomar
2nd Period
1) Sarah and Steve talked out to going home with half of the money, and they were closely agreeing to each others terms until they revealed each others balls, and Sarah stabbed Steve in the back taking home all of the money. She was smart to do what she did even though she hurt Steve.
2) Steve may have been a man of his word, but I think he was wrong to pick split rather than steal. You cant trust everyone. I would've picked steal also, since I do not trust anyone and I want to win the money. Either way, we would find out who was the liar and we would see who would win. It is a chance that I would take.
3) This does relate to oligopolitic markets since they both agree on something but in the end, one wants something even more than the other. They do this so one can have the advantage, and its one for all. There is no teams, its just be selfish and do what you can to get the better half. OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders since the competitors may lower their price in order to get more consumers to come to them.
Joshua Roy
Period 2
1.Sarah chose to steal the money despite Steve’s genuine attitude of splitting the money with her. After being “stabbed in the back last time,” Sarah probably did not trust Steve, thus causing her to steal the money. Thus her interest in her own personal benefits outweighed her partner’s needs, thus displaying Nash’s theory of Human self-interest.
2.Steve was not wrong in his decision to split, as he was satisfied with gains of 50,000 pounds. He trusted his opponent and went against Nash’s theory.
3.Because there is always that 1 person who decides they want more. Nash’s theory illustrates how humans focus on self-interest, as evident in this case. OPEC didnt work because if one group decides to undercut then it ruins the whole process and prices fall apart.
Benjamin Kurian
Period 4
1.Sarah is selfish and self-interested and that is why she stole the money. She wanted to make sure she didn’t get into trouble and she didn’t trust steve that much
2.I don’t steve was wrong to choose for the split. Even though she didn’t trust him that much, he still had faith in her and went against Nash’s theory
3. Steve and sarahs decisions represent dangerous things such as mafia because there is always distrust between everybody
Post a Comment