The Apocalypse Now of television gameshows
September 9, 2016 5:23 AM Subscribe
Stephen was a fool, because he fails to understand that 100K is awesome, but vengeance is priceless. After he double-crossed her before, how did he not expect this?
She gets to take all the money home, or she gets a "I drag you to Hell along side of me" revenge. Why? Because the wages of Sin is Death, MoFo.
posted by Chrischris at 5:40 AM on September 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
She gets to take all the money home, or she gets a "I drag you to Hell along side of me" revenge. Why? Because the wages of Sin is Death, MoFo.
posted by Chrischris at 5:40 AM on September 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I've seen the video in the OP before. A truly brutal shivving. I am reminded of the Simpsons' episode where Bart slo-mos the video of Lisa's snub of poor Ralph on live television.
"Watch this, Lisa. You can actually pinpoint the second when his heart rips in half."
posted by Justinian at 5:40 AM on September 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
"Watch this, Lisa. You can actually pinpoint the second when his heart rips in half."
posted by Justinian at 5:40 AM on September 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
They made a TV game show version of Diplomacy?
posted by KingEdRa at 5:51 AM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by KingEdRa at 5:51 AM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yikes.
Just a nit on the FPP's claim that always stealing is the winning strategy. As I understand it, in multi-round games of Prisoner's Dilemma, the winningest strategy is a variant of tit for tat that starts out trusting and continues to trust while trust is reciprocated. When burned, however, the player replies with a burn (which happens here), and then switches back to trust for the next round. This gives the player the most opportunity to win partial prizes via cooperation, while limiting the stealer's haul.
So basically, the winner in the referenced episode should send the loser a basket of biscuits or something.
posted by notyou at 6:00 AM on September 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Just a nit on the FPP's claim that always stealing is the winning strategy. As I understand it, in multi-round games of Prisoner's Dilemma, the winningest strategy is a variant of tit for tat that starts out trusting and continues to trust while trust is reciprocated. When burned, however, the player replies with a burn (which happens here), and then switches back to trust for the next round. This gives the player the most opportunity to win partial prizes via cooperation, while limiting the stealer's haul.
So basically, the winner in the referenced episode should send the loser a basket of biscuits or something.
posted by notyou at 6:00 AM on September 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
And this is why Christianity morphs to Prosperity Gospel.
Not quite sure why the Farage sentence in the article was struck through.
posted by Devonian at 6:06 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not quite sure why the Farage sentence in the article was struck through.
posted by Devonian at 6:06 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
As the colonel said, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Only suckers would choose split after they were screwed in the last round, despite the blandishments and promises.
posted by sudogeek at 6:09 AM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Only suckers would choose split after they were screwed in the last round, despite the blandishments and promises.
posted by sudogeek at 6:09 AM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just a nit on the FPP's claim that always stealing is the winning strategy. As I understand it, in multi-round games of Prisoner's Dilemma, the winningest strategy is a variant of tit for tat that starts out trusting and continues to trust while trust is reciprocated. When burned, however, the player replies with a burn (which happens here), and then switches back to trust for the next round. This gives the player the most opportunity to win partial prizes via cooperation, while limiting the stealer's haul.
Not exactly. Steal is the 'winning' strategy on a single round of the Prisoner's Dilemma, regardless of the other person's choice, even though it produces a globally worse outcome. On the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma the Tit for Tat strategy (You initially split, but if you get stolen, you steal) is the most successful for medium time frames, but Generous Tit For Tat (you get stolen twice before you steal) is the most successful over long time frames. Basically Tit for Tats get stuck in endless vendetta, never reducing the number of steals over time, where Generous Tit for Tat quick extinguishes the steals to the benefit of all.
That's if we're looking for global optimums, of course.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Not exactly. Steal is the 'winning' strategy on a single round of the Prisoner's Dilemma, regardless of the other person's choice, even though it produces a globally worse outcome. On the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma the Tit for Tat strategy (You initially split, but if you get stolen, you steal) is the most successful for medium time frames, but Generous Tit For Tat (you get stolen twice before you steal) is the most successful over long time frames. Basically Tit for Tats get stuck in endless vendetta, never reducing the number of steals over time, where Generous Tit for Tat quick extinguishes the steals to the benefit of all.
That's if we're looking for global optimums, of course.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
In life, tit for two tats is superior.
In games, tit for tat all the way!
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
In games, tit for tat all the way!
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Only suckers would choose split after they were screwed in the last round, despite the blandishments and promises.
"Fool me once..."
posted by leotrotsky at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Fool me once..."
posted by leotrotsky at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
> in multi-round games of Prisoner's Dilemma
More nit-picky: Only if the number of rounds is unknown. If the number of rounds is known, the whole thing collapses into "always defect".
And tit-for-tat can always be beaten (eg suspicious tit-for-tat beats tit-for-tat) in single games.
It's so good in general competition because it co-operates with co-operators and itself, and it punishes defectors (limiting its losses).
posted by Leon at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
More nit-picky: Only if the number of rounds is unknown. If the number of rounds is known, the whole thing collapses into "always defect".
And tit-for-tat can always be beaten (eg suspicious tit-for-tat beats tit-for-tat) in single games.
It's so good in general competition because it co-operates with co-operators and itself, and it punishes defectors (limiting its losses).
posted by Leon at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Prisoner's Dilemma Strategies
It's always more complicated.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:23 AM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's always more complicated.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:23 AM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I like this clip -- the one where one player simply announces his unshakeable intent to steal -- better. (linked previously here but too lazy to look for it)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:23 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:23 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
He double-crossed her. This does not need to be revenge. This is a simple assessment that he is lying with all of his promises to split.
I would have done the same: and then given a share out of my winnings.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:24 AM on September 9, 2016
I would have done the same: and then given a share out of my winnings.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:24 AM on September 9, 2016
(linked previously here but too lazy to look for it)
Found it! The very first comment in this thread.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 6:31 AM on September 9, 2016
Found it! The very first comment in this thread.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 6:31 AM on September 9, 2016
Oh, sorry. The internet-that's-not-metafilter has trained me not to click on links with that positive a description.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:39 AM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:39 AM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hah! I was just thinking to myself that the best strategy would be the one taken in the clip that Foci and ROU posted.
posted by xthlc at 6:42 AM on September 9, 2016
posted by xthlc at 6:42 AM on September 9, 2016
I would kick him, like, 50K. Living without the guilt would be worth it.
posted by triage_lazarus at 7:04 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by triage_lazarus at 7:04 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Betrayed by a damn gelfling, smdh
posted by boo_radley at 7:07 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by boo_radley at 7:07 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
After he betrayed her. From the article: "There's the intrigue in Stephen having already double crossed Sarah in a previous round."
Believe a person's words, or their actions?
posted by filthy light thief at 7:16 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Believe a person's words, or their actions?
posted by filthy light thief at 7:16 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not quite sure why the Farage sentence in the article was struck through.
Because there's no dilemma, he should be a fucking prisoner.
posted by lalochezia at 7:57 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I find the article almost too annoying to read in its insistence that she 'betrayed' him, did something wrong, should be ashamed, and so on. If somebody beats you at poker by bluffing, you don't whine that they weren't honest with you about what cards they had--especially not after trying to bluff them in the previous hand. The loser's crocodile tears about 'greed' and 'revenge' make me wish he'd been sent home with a kick in the nuts in addition to no money.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 8:16 AM on September 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 8:16 AM on September 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Can someone explain or link to a clip of what went down in the previous round? Without knowing that this clip has much less impact for me.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:17 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sangermaine at 8:17 AM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just because I've never had a chance to tell this story:
I once attended a (poorly thought out) seminar led by a duo of "thought leaders" and specialists in organizational communications.
They were both middle-aged white guys who were putting together some sort of think tank to bolster their MBA consulting operation. And they led the afternoon seminar with their own retread on the prisoner's dilemma. This was all part of a larger conference sponsored by the Lilly Endowment.
Anyway, the critical piece of information is that every participant in the seminar was a church pastor.
The entire operation began to rapidly devolve into who could out-altruism the rest of the room.
Right out of the gate, everyone took the position that would guarantee the best outcome for the other prisoner, since they are our "friend."
The two men running the seminar became frustrated and changed the dilemma so that the other prisoner wasn't our friend, but our worst enemy.
This led to an even more vociferous desire to accept the worst of the punishments - because to bear the lash for a hated enemy was manifestly more Christ-like than to accept suffering on behalf of a kindred!
At this point the two men started to gesticulate wildly. "Pretend like you're doing whatever is in your own self interest! This exercise is about self interest!"
One particularly pious individual stood up dramatically and launched into a diatribe about the value of discipline and the denial of the self as an accomplishment more precious than personal liberty! (Myself, at this point, I was laughing so hard I couldn't breath.)
One of the two "thought leaders" started to come unglued. "This isn't how game theory works, you are all doing it wrong!" Well.
I don't know what the moral of this story is. But given that the entirety of their seminar was based on the results they had anticipated receiving from the opening exercise, you can imagine the rest of the afternoon was absolutely hilarious.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:18 AM on September 9, 2016 [112 favorites]
I once attended a (poorly thought out) seminar led by a duo of "thought leaders" and specialists in organizational communications.
They were both middle-aged white guys who were putting together some sort of think tank to bolster their MBA consulting operation. And they led the afternoon seminar with their own retread on the prisoner's dilemma. This was all part of a larger conference sponsored by the Lilly Endowment.
Anyway, the critical piece of information is that every participant in the seminar was a church pastor.
The entire operation began to rapidly devolve into who could out-altruism the rest of the room.
Right out of the gate, everyone took the position that would guarantee the best outcome for the other prisoner, since they are our "friend."
The two men running the seminar became frustrated and changed the dilemma so that the other prisoner wasn't our friend, but our worst enemy.
This led to an even more vociferous desire to accept the worst of the punishments - because to bear the lash for a hated enemy was manifestly more Christ-like than to accept suffering on behalf of a kindred!
At this point the two men started to gesticulate wildly. "Pretend like you're doing whatever is in your own self interest! This exercise is about self interest!"
One particularly pious individual stood up dramatically and launched into a diatribe about the value of discipline and the denial of the self as an accomplishment more precious than personal liberty! (Myself, at this point, I was laughing so hard I couldn't breath.)
One of the two "thought leaders" started to come unglued. "This isn't how game theory works, you are all doing it wrong!" Well.
I don't know what the moral of this story is. But given that the entirety of their seminar was based on the results they had anticipated receiving from the opening exercise, you can imagine the rest of the afternoon was absolutely hilarious.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:18 AM on September 9, 2016 [112 favorites]
If somebody beats you at poker by bluffing, you don't whine that they weren't honest with you about what cards they had-
loolll you havent played that much poker have you
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:22 AM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
loolll you havent played that much poker have you
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:22 AM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Baby Balrog that is the best story I have ever heard in my life. That should be in the bible.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:24 AM on September 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:24 AM on September 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
The story is interesting but it's weird from the weird viewpoint that she did something wrong. As far as I can tell she 1) played by the rules and 2) understood that somebody who had betrayed her previously was not to be trusted. What's the problem, exactly? It's almost like the author is buying into the notion that the man is by default in charge of the situation and the woman is supposed to go along with that.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 8:40 AM on September 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by LastOfHisKind at 8:40 AM on September 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't know what the moral of this story is.
The moral of the story is that the standard game theoretic analysis of the Prisoner's Dilemma is horseshit because superrationality beats it, that the intellectual basis of Christian morality is essentially superrational, and that superrational people understand that anybody who describes himself as a "thought leader" without detectable irony is their actual opponent.
If all participants are superrational and confident in each other's superrationality, the Prisoner's Dilemma ceases to be any kind of dilemma. The fundamental point is that the game is totally symmetrical. Any line of reasoning in favour of a Split or Steal choice applies with equal force to both players; therefore, both players should make the choice that maximizes return assuming that the other player will reason their way to the same choice.
Stephen's betrayal in the previous round revealed him to be not superrational, making Sarah's optimal play for the final round perfectly clear.
posted by flabdablet at 8:47 AM on September 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
The moral of the story is that the standard game theoretic analysis of the Prisoner's Dilemma is horseshit because superrationality beats it, that the intellectual basis of Christian morality is essentially superrational, and that superrational people understand that anybody who describes himself as a "thought leader" without detectable irony is their actual opponent.
If all participants are superrational and confident in each other's superrationality, the Prisoner's Dilemma ceases to be any kind of dilemma. The fundamental point is that the game is totally symmetrical. Any line of reasoning in favour of a Split or Steal choice applies with equal force to both players; therefore, both players should make the choice that maximizes return assuming that the other player will reason their way to the same choice.
Stephen's betrayal in the previous round revealed him to be not superrational, making Sarah's optimal play for the final round perfectly clear.
posted by flabdablet at 8:47 AM on September 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Baby_Balrog: "I don't know what the moral of this story is"
Game theory is for sociopaths.
posted by boo_radley at 9:09 AM on September 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Game theory is for sociopaths.
posted by boo_radley at 9:09 AM on September 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
What drew me into the blog post, was that prior to watching the video or reading much of the article, was that I was convinced he was going to be the Lucifer. I was actually sort of relieved when it was her, more so when I saw that he'd "betrayed" her before.
£100k is such an enormous amount of money that I feel like "only" 50k in comparison would be a disappointment, despite it being fantastic under any other circumstances.
posted by threetwentytwo at 12:26 PM on September 9, 2016
£100k is such an enormous amount of money that I feel like "only" 50k in comparison would be a disappointment, despite it being fantastic under any other circumstances.
posted by threetwentytwo at 12:26 PM on September 9, 2016
that the intellectual basis of Christian morality is essentially superrational
I don't agree with this. That the superrational player will cooperate in a single-round prisoner's dilemma scenario is contingent on the other player also being superrational, and each knowing that the other is superrational.
If a superrational player knows that the other player is merely "rational" in the game-theoretic sense, and therefore knows that the other player will defect, the superrational player also defects. (Not because he is mirroring what he expects the other player to do, but because his reasoning collapses to the usual game-theoretic analysis.)
Contrariwise, I strongly suspect that the Christian pastors in Baby_Balrog's story would cooperate even if they knew the other player would defect.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:49 PM on September 9, 2016
I don't agree with this. That the superrational player will cooperate in a single-round prisoner's dilemma scenario is contingent on the other player also being superrational, and each knowing that the other is superrational.
If a superrational player knows that the other player is merely "rational" in the game-theoretic sense, and therefore knows that the other player will defect, the superrational player also defects. (Not because he is mirroring what he expects the other player to do, but because his reasoning collapses to the usual game-theoretic analysis.)
Contrariwise, I strongly suspect that the Christian pastors in Baby_Balrog's story would cooperate even if they knew the other player would defect.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:49 PM on September 9, 2016
This academic paper by two economists used the footage from Goldenballs to study how the Prisoner's Dilemma works in real-life situations. There's another game show called Friend or Foe that used a similar game theory problem called the Ultimatum Game, which an econ professor of mine once wrote up in a paper.
posted by jonp72 at 4:43 PM on September 9, 2016
posted by jonp72 at 4:43 PM on September 9, 2016
I'd be fascinated to learn what happened to the 2 Goldenballs players in the ensuing 7 or 8 years. Did Sarah's life change? Did Stephen descend into madness and the workhouse? Can't find anything via Google. It's like the British tabloids aren't doing their job or something.
posted by Vcholerae at 8:37 PM on September 9, 2016
posted by Vcholerae at 8:37 PM on September 9, 2016
« Older Let’s have another round tonight | Colors and Scrapes Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Foci for Analysis at 5:37 AM on September 9, 2016 [20 favorites]