Reposting the explanation without the language they used towards me.
You wanna talk game theory, let’s talk game theory. Two people are given $100 to split. One person makes an offer, the other choses to accept or deny - if they deny, nobody gets anything. What is the “game theory rational” outcome? The offer made is a $99-$1 split, which is accepted, because $1 is better than nothing. What actually happens when this has been done irl? The result is offers less than about $30 get rejected, and so the offers tend to be more equitable. Chosing to take nothing may be less “rational” on the surface level, but by establishing it as a credible threat of denial, this “irrational” approach achieves a better outcome.
Normally, if I played that game with someone, I’d probably just offer a 50-50 split, but if it was one of you, I’d only offer you a dollar, because I know you’d take it. Because literally your whole ideology is built around accepting shitty deals, rejecting the deal would invalidate your entire belief system.
The reason that people are prone to the “irrational” strategy in that game is that the “rational” strategy is only rational within the confines of the game. In real life, the game doesn’t end there, and if you signal you’ll accept a $99-$1 split, that’s all you’ll ever get in the future.
Alternatively: we play the game but you don’t know we are playing. I offer you $1 which you take, thinking “wow this stranger gave me a dollar!”, while not realizing I was pocketing $99.
One side was played unknowingly, the other got rich and laughed.
It may also be that the libs simply don’t care about the same concerns and so from their perspective Kamala’s offering them a reasonable deal and not just $1. Like, I’ve seen plenty of posts talking about how Kamala would’ve be “great” and not just a lesser evil, they just pretend they care to try to convince people to fall in line.
Reposting the explanation without the language they used towards me.
You wanna talk game theory, let’s talk game theory. Two people are given $100 to split. One person makes an offer, the other choses to accept or deny - if they deny, nobody gets anything. What is the “game theory rational” outcome? The offer made is a $99-$1 split, which is accepted, because $1 is better than nothing. What actually happens when this has been done irl? The result is offers less than about $30 get rejected, and so the offers tend to be more equitable. Chosing to take nothing may be less “rational” on the surface level, but by establishing it as a credible threat of denial, this “irrational” approach achieves a better outcome.
Normally, if I played that game with someone, I’d probably just offer a 50-50 split, but if it was one of you, I’d only offer you a dollar, because I know you’d take it. Because literally your whole ideology is built around accepting shitty deals, rejecting the deal would invalidate your entire belief system.
The reason that people are prone to the “irrational” strategy in that game is that the “rational” strategy is only rational within the confines of the game. In real life, the game doesn’t end there, and if you signal you’ll accept a $99-$1 split, that’s all you’ll ever get in the future.
Alternatively: we play the game but you don’t know we are playing. I offer you $1 which you take, thinking “wow this stranger gave me a dollar!”, while not realizing I was pocketing $99.
One side was played unknowingly, the other got rich and laughed.
It may also be that the libs simply don’t care about the same concerns and so from their perspective Kamala’s offering them a reasonable deal and not just $1. Like, I’ve seen plenty of posts talking about how Kamala would’ve be “great” and not just a lesser evil, they just pretend they care to try to convince people to fall in line.