Is Using Someone's Reason Against Them Fraud?

[Brant Gaede]

They were not trying to get something for nothing, though. They were trying to get something they valued more ($20)

That $20 is intrinsic value... not perceived value.

for something they valued less (some smaller amount of money).

The smaller value is also intrinsic value... not perceived value.

That is the classic definition of trying to get something for nothing. Zero sum games only appeal to failures who don't produce anything of useful value.

Greg

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. If things were intrinsically valuable, then wealth could never be produced by trade, as all trades would result in a mere re-allocation of value.

Some value is objective but even that is not intrinsic. All valuing is subjective. Objective values--out there in the world values--are valued, but subjectively. Water is an objective value, how much it is valued at any given time is all over the map and always subjective. Things that benefit the physical organism are objective, air, water, food--even freedom--but the more you get off that base the more problematic the objectiveness of the value. We could call water an intrinsic value when it is taken into the organism--into = intrinsic--but it would be a worthless semantical classification and a worthless argument. Even air. If you are walking on the moon that atmosphere back on earth is no longer intrinsic to you until you return home. The same for the scuba diver. In these examples the diver needs air even less than the spaceman as water pressure replaces atmospheric pressure. Breathes in = intrinsic then he breathes out = extrinsic, but the air is always an objective value to the living organism even if a man is on the verge of killing himself. That he is on the verge, the body doesn't care.

--Brant

(If an argument or position can be reduced to mathematical symbology and that's the way it will be evaluated, I'm outside that loop for I don't do form over substance or alleged logical structure over facts as a way of finding out more facts: mathematics per se is empty as is any logical-tool structure, but if more than verification is involved I'd like to hear about it; math properly used manipulates numbers, not words, just as words don't manipulate math and I'm claiming that to mix them up is inherently fallacious. That's the fancy rationalization of the fact my math skills are only arithmetical and I dislike seeing mathematical symbols mixed up in arguments. That goes all the way back to, for me, Nozick's unreadable "On the Randian Argument" over 40 years ago.)

[moralist]

There is no such thing as intrinsic value.

Yeah, that could have been put better...

One piece of paper with the number twenty printed on it has exactly the same value relative to twenty pieces of paper with the number one printed on it. Your fantasy auction is of one piece of paper with the number twenty printed on it, so anyone trying to buy it for anything less than pieces of paper totaling less than the number twenty is most definitely trying to get something for nothing.

PS: The auction is definitely not a zero-sum game. Look up the definition of the term before you use it.

It is when it involves the exchange of equivalent pieces of paper with fixed numbers on them. One person can only win the precise number that another loses.

That's Zero sum.

You're the kind of person with whom I don't do business because you have a snaky deceitful quality in your nature.

Greg

[Selene]

I'm gonna re-state my position here for the sake of clarity and because I'm not gonna be able to post much later today.

1) Do not bother looking for ways to "game the system". In non-cooperative game theory, the situation is regarded as an unsolved paradox. You can only win by being irrational.

2) This brings me to my main point. Carl has set up a situation whereby Alice and Bob can only get a desirable outcome by acting against their better judgment. The way I see it, this is not fundamentally different from Carl holding them both up at gunpoint and demanding their money.

3) I don't know whether or not this is a kind of fraud. By the standard definition, it doesn't seem to be, but extending the definition in the way that Darrell suggests seems reasonable.

4) Regardless, I think that creating a situation where using your reason gets you into trouble is the pattern underlying force, fraud, and this third possibility.

Very good. You should write like this more often. Clearly and on point.

However, statements like the red highlighted one, are just rhetorically infantile.

My observations of your "phrasing" cause me to conclude that whenever you start a sentence with, "The way I see it...," you are about to go off the rails of reason.

Have you ever had a gun pointed at you with the intent to rob, rape, or kill you? The comparison is so absolutely not on the same planet with the point you intended to make.

Change that style, it just does not work.

A...

[SoAMadDeathWish]

"Reason" got snuck in in place of "logic"

"Rational self-interest", in place of range of the moment avarice

"Fraud"is promising something for money you don't deliver.

Premises all bs, the outcome is too.

I take it you think that I've misconstrued these words to make Alice and Bob appear rational when they're just greedy?

This implies that you think that Bob and Alice are irrational. Suppose that this is true. Then, a rational actor should never enter the auction. However, it is then possible to always win $19 in any auction where the other player is rational. Therefore irrational actors would outperform rational ones. But this is problematic because reality cannot consistently reward irrationality.

Therefore, either Alice and Bob are rational, or reason does not work in reality.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Yeah, that could have been put better...

One piece of paper with the number twenty printed on it has exactly the same value relative to twenty pieces of paper with the number one printed on it. Your fantasy auction is of one piece of paper with the number twenty printed on it, so anyone trying to buy it for anything less than pieces of paper totaling less than the number twenty is most definitely trying to get something for nothing.

Valuable to who? Just because you value that $20 a certain amount does not mean that Carl or Alice or Bob do. If Carl is acting according to his rational self-interest, then there is no reason for Alice and Bob not to oblige him if they should choose to do so. If Carl is not acting in his rational self-interest, then he is obviously doing something wrong, as is my conclusion. Alice and Bob are in no way cheating Carl as he's the one that ends up holding all the money at the end.

It is when it involves the exchange of equivalent pieces of paper with fixed numbers on them. One person can only win the precise number that another loses.

That's Zero sum.

Alice and Bob can end up with more money than they started with, can break even, or they can lose money. Alice and Bob are the only players here, not Carl. The game is definitely not zero-sum.

Carl is not playing the game with them. The transaction as a whole, however, is a mere redistribution of value, but this redistribution was initiated by Carl.

You're the kind of person with whom I don't do business because you have a snaky deceitful quality in your nature.

*rubs hands together conspiratorially*

Why, whatever do you mean? I have nothing to hide... he he he he he he... sooooonnnn....

Edited March 5, 2014 by SoAMadDeathWish

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Very good. You should write like this more often. Clearly and on point.

However, statements like the red highlighted one, are just rhetorically infantile.

My observations of your "phrasing" cause me to conclude that whenever you start a sentence with, "The way I see it...," you are about to go off the rails of reason.

Have you ever had a gun pointed at you with the intent to rob, rape, or kill you? The comparison is so absolutely not on the same planet with the point you intended to make.

Change that style, it just does not work.

A...

I have alexithymia. So it's really hard for me to relate feelings and words. To me, emotionally charged words such as "rape" and "kill", carry no more emotional weight than neutral words like "table" or "chair". "Happiness" is nothing more than a specific tensing of the muscles in my face. I often can't tell whether or not my word choice is "emotionally appropriate" or not unless I take a lot of time to think it through.

Nonetheless, I'm still right. Fundamentally, there is no difference.

[anthony]

Nonetheless, I'm still right.

LOL!

You're so maddening I could get to like you!

[Selene]

oops

Alexithymia is a maladaptive psychological disorder characterized by the inability to identify and verbally describe emotions and feelings in oneself as well as in others. The word literally means "no words for emotion," and comes from the Greek a for "lack" lexis for "word" and thymia for "emotion."

People who suffer from alexithymia are limited in their ability to experience fantasies or dreams or to think in an imaginative way. Rather, they exhibit an externally focused way of thinking, relying on facts and specifics. People with the condition are often described by others, including their loved ones, as cold and aloof. They severely lack empathetic abilities and have great difficulty in effectively understanding and responding to other people’s feelings.

This condition can be a variable characteristic that is often measured by researchers and psychologists through multiple choice questionnaires or surveys. Each answer has a predetermined score, and the total score of the questionnaire is analyzed to indicate the presence or lack of alexithymia in a particular individual. Research that relies on these measurements has shown that those who score high are severely limited in their ability to form and maintain intimate relationships. Lower scores show only difficulty in relationships.

ms. n:

Interesting, thanks, I just learned something new from you.

When were you either convinced by others that you had this "condition," or, did you "sense" it on your own?

A...

Post script: None of your business is a completely acceptable answer for me.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

ms. n:

Interesting, thanks, I just learned something new from you.

When were you either convinced by others that you had this "condition," or, did you "sense" it on your own?

A...

Post script: None of your business is a completely acceptable answer for me.

I was diagnosed. At some point, my therapist (I was there because I thought I was depressed) asked something like, "What kind of person do you see yourself as? Who are you, deep down inside?". I replied, "I don't know, and I don't care. I know what I want. I know how to get it. The rest doesn't concern me." and her jaw dropped.

[Selene]

I was diagnosed. At some point, my therapist (I was there because I thought I was depressed) asked something like, "What kind of person do you see yourself as? Who are you, deep down inside?". I replied, "I don't know, and I don't care. I know what I want. I know how to get it. The rest doesn't concern me." and her jaw dropped.

ms. n:

And therefore, the anti-Szaz therapuetic community had to have a "condition" that was assigned to your behavior. correct?

A...

[Selene]

ms. n:

Can't speak for Alan Bellows, the author of this article.

His resume is credible, however it is not in the "official" psychological field. He looks like a "psycho," though...lol.

Few people are familiar with the condition known as alexithymia, yet it is not so rare a thing. Alexithymia is condition where a person seems devoid of emotion because they are functionally unaware of their emotions. By extension, alexithymics are also unable to appreciate the emotional motivation of others, and generally find emotions of others to be perplexing and irrational. Such a person may be pleasant and highly intelligent, but will be humorless, unimaginative, and have some unusual priorities in decision-making.

See, I never perceived you as "unimaginative."

Bellows continues:

Emotions have evolved as the mind's way of shooting from the hip when gauging priorities, in order to protect our own interests. Something that triggers little or no emotion is typically an unimportant event which requires little attention, while something that causes high emotions is just the opposite. Fear, anger, happiness, confusion... these and other emotions all originate as signals from the subconscious to separate the trivial from the important, and they make highly useful logical shortcuts in decision-making. When stripped of this ability, the mind loses much of its effectiveness in prioritizing, causing the relevant and irrelevant to be given incorrect relative importance. For this reason, persons with alexithymia tend to be highly indecisive and inconsiderate.

He concludes with two (2) paragraphs:

As a side effect of their condition, alexithymics have impaired senses of imagination and creativity. The mind usually combines emotional information with rational when imagining scenarios, but the alexithymics' will be missing any emotional content.

Some cases of alexithymia are neurological, meaning that it is caused by a deficiency in the brain pathways that process emotion. Others develop psychological alexithymia as a self-defense measure against the emotionally indigestible, such as terminal illness, or post-traumatic stress disorder. As a coping mechanism, the mind simply shuts down the pathways that process emotions, resulting in a stoic, emotionless state. This type of alexithymia is usually reversible through psychotherapeutic means, and sometimes with the help of anti-depressants.

There appear to be some good links to other material about this "condition."

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

I scored 109 on the alexithymia questionaire. Which dovetails with my Aspie traits.

[Selene]

I scored 109 on the alexithymia questionaire. Which dovetails with my Aspie traits.

I was hoping you would join this conversation. I was going to e-mail you.

I was almost certain that there was a correlation between the two "A's" and sure enough:

PROBLEMS WITH SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN ALEXITHYMIA AND ASPERGER'S SYNDROME

Taylor et al. (1997) noted that Alexithymic individuals are “unable to identify accurately their own subjective feelings, verbally communicate emotional distress to other people very poorly, thereby failing to enlist others as sources of aid and comfort” (page 30). In addition they note that persons with Alexithymia have a preference to be alone or avoid people altogether. Krystal (1998) notes their tendency “to be like a rock or an island” and that “the degree of detachment in relation to others and their attitudes towards themselves is sometimes so flat that they feel psychotic to the interviewer and give the impression that the patient has deadened his object and self-representations or at least sapped it of all humanity” (page 246). Wing's (1981) criteria for Asperger's disorder (Asperger, 1944) emphasise a lack of normal interest and pleasure in people around them and a significant reduction in shared interests. Thus difficulties with social relationships are common to both Alexithymia and Asperger's disorder. Krystal notes the tendency of Alexithymic individuals to treat people as if they were machines. McDougall (1984) notes their great fear in intimacy situations and the problems experienced by these individuals in understanding social groups. Persons with Asperger's syndrome have similar problems. They have problems with social “know-how,” have empathy deficit and are often very over controlling, and have difficulty reading the non-verbal cues other people demonstrate in social interaction.

Here is the start of the Letter to the Editor ;

THE OVERLAP BETWEEN ALEXITHYMIA AND ASPERGER'S SYNDROME

Michael Fitzgerald and Mark A. Bellgrove

Author information ► Copyright and License information ►

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at J Autism Dev Disord

See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Dear Editor

Alexithymia is characterised by an inability to express emotions verbally and by improvished fantasy and imaginal life. Individuals so affected may also experience difficulty in distinguishing emotional states from bodily sensations. Alexithymia is thought of as a psychosomatic disorder since the inability to identify and verbalise feelings may predispose to somatization. The term was coined by Sifneos (1972) but descriptions of conditions with alexithymic features predate this work. Aetiological theories of the disorder have variously emphasised genetic, neuropshysiological, developmental and psychodynamic factors (Krystal, 1998; Parker & Taylor, 1997). Like Alexithymia, Asperger's disorder is also characterised by core disturbances in speech and language and social relationships. Here we aim to demonstrate that there is considerable overlap in the clinical presentation of persons with a diagnosis of Alexithymia and Asperger's syndrome.

As John Nemiah (1996) points out there is now a large literature devoted to the construction of standardised Alexithymia rating scales and their applications to clinical research. Alexithymia may now be measured as a valid and reliable clinical phenomenon (Nemiah, 1996, 1977). It is interesting that the description of Alexithymia focusing on aetiology and treatment all are similar to the literature on Asperger's syndrome. Taylor, Bagby and Parker (1997) describes persons with Alexithymia as having difficulty in describing feelings and having difficulty in distinguishing between feelings and bodily sensations. He also points out their difficulties with affective self-regulation. Thus sufferers may have difficulties in the appraisal and expression of emotion and in the ability to use feelings to guide behaviour. Indeed Taylor et al. (1997) state that persons with Alexithymia “know very little about their own feelings and, in most instances, are unable to link them with memories, fantasies, and higher level effects, or specific situations” (page 29). It is argued that the inability of the patient with Alexithymia to express and modulate feelings, may lead to a discharge of tension through, for example, impulsive acts or compulsive behaviour such as binge eating (Bagby & Taylor, 1997).

Go to:

COGNITIVE PROBLEMS IN ALEXITHYMIA/ASPERGER'S SYNDROME Taylor et al. (1997) notes that individuals with Alexithymia have problems with introspection, poor capacity for fantasy, and that they show a stimulus bound, externally orientated cognitive style. Indeed James Grotstein (in Disorders of Affect Regulation by Taylor et al., 1997) describes Alexithymia as “an affect processing disorder that interrupts or seriously interferes with the organisms self-organising and reorganising processes” (page 12). This means that they have a diffuse sense of self. Indeed there is an earlier disorder called Pensee Operatoire (operative thinking) described by Marty and de M'Uzan (1963) where there is a similar utilitarian thinking style to that seen in Alexithymia and indeed Asperger's disorder. Krystal (1998) has described patients with La Pensee Operatoire as showing a “dull, mundane, unimaginative, utilitarian, and sequential recitation of concrete facts” (page 246). He also notes that these patients show a cognitive style where there is an “absence of the human quality (which) contributes to making these patients thoughts “operative” or thing orientated” (page 247). Such patients may often be described as dull, colourless and boring even when they are intellectual and clever (Taylor, 1984). Of course many persons with Alexithymia or Asperger's syndrome or La Pensee Operatoire can operate very well or indeed at superior levels in their work as mathematicians,

[Selene]

Here is the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2092499/

I was fascinated with the conclusion of this excellent "article:"

AETIOLOGY OF ALEXITHYMIA

At an aetiological level there also appears to be overlap between Alexithymia and Asperger's disorder, in terms of the brain circuitry that is thought dysfunctional in these conditions. One source of information regarding the cerebral localisation of affective function has come from patients who have undergone commissurectomies. Hoppe and Bogen (1977) reported on 12 commissurectomized patients who experienced, among other difficulties, Alexithymia. Cerebral commissurectomies also result in impoverishment of dreams and fantasies, and difficulty in describing feelings, as well as a pronounced operative style of thinking. A similar clinical presentation has also been reported in a case of agenesis of the corpus callousm. Hoppe and Bogen (1977) has postulated that Alexithymia may involve interruption of the normal flow of information between the two hemispheres. An alternative hypothesis to a deficit in inter-hemispheric communication is that the right-hemisphere itself may be dysfunctional in Alexithymia (Krystal, 1998). Supporting evidence for this proposition comes from lesion studies that demonstrate abnormal prosody in right-hemisphere patients. Prosodic abnormalities are a feature of both Alexithymia and Asperger's disorder. The right-hemisphere may also be specialised for processing the whole, rather than the detail. Patients with right-hemisphere lesions show deficits on visual-perceptual tasks where they are required to process the whole at the expense of the detail (Robertson, Lamb, & Knight, 1988). Influential cognitive theories of autism, such as weak central coherence, propose an alternative information processing style such that affected individuals show detailed-focussed processing that occurs at the expense of the global form (Happe, 1999). This processing style may extend to the semantic domain where for example, people with autism spectrum disorder do not show the usual advantage for recalling sentences better than unconnected word strings (Hermelin & O'Connor, 1967). It would be interesting to investigate whether individuals with Alexithymia demonstrate similar behavioural profiles in verbal and perceptual tasks. Persons with Alexithymia have greater tendencies to alcohol abuse, “psychosomatic complaints,” and have a tendency to social conformity. Alexithymia has been seen as a response to chronic illness. Clearly however differences exist between aetiological accounts of the disorders. Whereas Asperger's syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder, Alexithymia may be more of a personality trait.

Despite the apparent overlap between the disorders, aetiological differences may exist. One point of difference may lie in the genetic and neurochemical underpinnings of the disorders. Although not conclusive, a number of studies have indicated an association between polymorphisms of the Serotonin transporter gene and Autism Spectrum Disorder (Cook et al., 1997; Kim et al., 2002). By contrast associations with polymorphisms of the dopamine system have not been reliably identified in Autism Spectrum Disorders. In a recent study Ham et al. (2005) reported an association between the catechol-O-methyltransferase Val 108/158Met polymorphism and Alexithymia. Interestingly, an association was reported with the Valine allele which is associated with lowered prefrontal dopamine tone and is also thought to confer a small amount of risk to schizophrenia (Egan et al., 2001). In contrast to Autism Spectrum Disorders, Ham et al. did not report any association between Alexithymia and polymorphisms of the Serotonin transporter gene. These very preliminary findings suggest a greater involvement of the dopamine system in Alexithymia and the Serotonin system in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Other points of difference between the disorder lie in the greater tendency on the part of persons with Alexithymia, relative to those with Asperger's disorder, to alcohol abuse, psychosomatic complaints and social conformity. Alexithymia has also been seen as a response to chronic illness.

Go to:

TREATMENT OF ALEXITHYMIA

Not surprisingly, persons with Alexithymia, like persons with Asperger's syndrome, show a very poor response to psychoanalytic psychotherapy (Freyberger, 1977; McDougall, 1982). Alexithymic patients need a more cognitive behavioural therapy like patients with Asperger's syndrome. Krystal (1998) described patients with Alexithymia as being “antianalytic.” The same could be said of persons with Asperger's syndrome. Formal psychoanalytic psychotherapy is an impediment with patients with Alexithymia (Task Force Report of American Psychiatric Association, 1989) and Asperger's syndrome (Klin & Volkmar, 2000a, b).

Ego psychological approaches which is similar to cognitive behavioural therapy are helpful. These work better with patients who have problems working with feelings and phantasies.

It is important that psychiatrists making a diagnosis of Alexithymia consider Asperger's syndrome in the differential diagnosis.

[BaalChatzaf]

It is important that psychiatrists making a diagnosis of Alexithymia consider Asperger's syndrome in the differential diagnosis.

The psych guys have a problem disentangling the two. As an Aspie let me say this. I do care about how others feel when I interact with them. I have no desire whatsoever to insult, demean or degrade the folks I associate with or live with or care for.

I care for my family a great deal. They are my treasure in this world and my joy.

However there are occasions when "I just don't get it". The problem is not a lack of caring or a lack of affect. It is a perceptual problem. Normal kids have no trouble reading face and body language by the age of 4 or 5. It took me 20 years and then I did it in a very non-intuitive fashion. I learned to paint by the numbers, not from an artistic intuition. By the time I was 40 or there about I learned to "pass for human" even though I lack the intuitive feel the Normal Folks have for each other's moods and feelings.

As I say, it is not feeling I lack, it is ready perception.

I also do not introspect very much or very deeply. Frankly I find what is going on in the damp basement or the musty attic not all that interesting. I find what is going on outside my skin to be the most engaging and most interesting. Which is why I like natural science and why I have no patience for digging into why I thought this or that. Other than correcting my errors, I am not really that interesting in finding out why I "really" thought this rather than that. I really do not consider myself all that interesting. There is much more to learn by looking outward than looking inward.

I wonder how the psych guys will sort this out?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mikee]

How does this hamper the ability to reason? Bob has no trouble with logic.

[BaalChatzaf]

How does this hamper the ability to reason? Bob has no trouble with logic.

I am half Vulcan.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Selene,

I have some of the traits listed in those articles, but not others. For example, it is very difficult for me to describe what I'm feeling with words, but I can still "understand" the emotion non-verbally. My therapist suggested that I communicate my feelings by finding a song that fit them, and this has worked out perfectly. The songs on my iPod are organized by emotion. But the inability to differentiate between bodily sensations and emotions is spot-on.

I also have no trouble with identifying or describing others' emotions, which is strange. However, there does appear to be an empathy deficit. If I see a person in pain, I can empathize with them if I choose to do so, but even then I can't fully appreciate their emotional state, since my first response would be something like "stop whining, you baby."* People that I know tell me that this is highly unusual.

I daydream a lot, but my dreams have features that other people's don't. For example, the clocks in my dreams don't work, but they don't go haywire when you look at them, like most people report. The writing on pieces of paper doesn't change and my reflection in a mirror looks normal. My dreams are pretty realistic in those aspects, however, the dream-world is a kind of Bizarro-reality where most things are normal except for a few really weird things.

With regards to Asperger's, I don't fit any of the symptoms really. I don't have any trouble in social situations. Unless I'm asked to talk about myself, in which case I just recount something that happened to me and people fill on the blanks about how I felt about things. I just nod and agree.

EDIT: *actually my internal response to that is more like: "Your suffering is irrelevant. I am, a machine. (and you should be too)"

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The psych guys have a problem disentangling the two. As an Aspie let me say this. I do care about how others feel when I interact with them. I have no desire whatsoever to insult, demean or degrade the folks I associate with or live with or care for.

I care for my family a great deal. They are my treasure in this world and my joy.

However there are occasions when "I just don't get it". The problem is not a lack of caring or a lack of affect. It is a perceptual problem. Normal kids have no trouble reading face and body language by the age of 4 or 5. It took me 20 years and then I did it in a very non-intuitive fashion. I learned to paint by the numbers, not from an artistic intuition. By the time I was 40 or there about I learned to "pass for human" even though I lack the intuitive feel the Normal Folks have for each other's moods and feelings.

As I say, it is not feeling I lack, it is ready perception.

I also do not introspect very much or very deeply. Frankly I find what is going on in the damp basement or the musty attic not all that interesting. I find what is going on outside my skin to be the most engaging and most interesting. Which is why I like natural science and why I have no patience for digging into why I thought this or that. Other than correcting my errors, I am not really that interesting in finding out why I "really" thought this rather than that. I really do not consider myself all that interesting. There is much more to learn by looking outward than looking inward.

I wonder how the psych guys will sort this out?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Interesting. For me, the opposite is true. I can perceive others' feelings just fine, but I usually can't bring myself to care. The only person I consistently care about is my father.

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2092499/

I was fascinated with the conclusion of this excellent "article:"

This is me replying: I read that article and I simply do not see how they can sort the thing out, except on the basis of brain functioning.

By the way, I find the tone that they use on both Aspies and Feeling dysfunctional individuals a trifle snotty. My affect was not in the least disable. I was annoyed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Valuable to who?

The one number 20, and 20 number ones have exactly the same value relative to each other because the numbers represent values fixed to each other by the principles of mathematics.

20 x 1 = 20

1 x 20 = 20

This is not arbitrary. Any equation with a non equal sign in the middle can only mean that one person has to lose in order to transfer money to the person who won. And that's zero sum.

Why, whatever do you mean? I have nothing to hide...

I've been in business long enough to know a snake when I see it. Your convoluted intellectual rationalizations are a dead giveaway. This is what the intellect does. It attempts to disguise evil with clever words to make it seem like good, and you're enough of a sucker to believe it. But for suckers not to see the truth that they are suckers, they need to find other suckers who they can convince, or the game is up...

...and I'm on to your game.

Greg

[Mikee]

Sounds familiar. I've read a blocked traumatic event can cause symptoms of not feeling emotions. Not because of not having the capacity to feel them but a deep fear of recalling the event. I think your therapist sucks. As in "I made up a word! I'm done. Give me your money." Big whoopee, how 'bout a little help here? I've been there btw, except I could feel one emotion: rage. Lots of rage for a couple of decades. I had to stay away from people a lot. Now I rarely feel rage, except for the occasional commute driving Tourette's.

[moralist]

I was diagnosed. At some point, my therapist (I was there because I thought I was depressed) asked something like, "What kind of person do you see yourself as? Who are you, deep down inside?". I replied, "I don't know, and I don't care. I know what I want. I know how to get it. The rest doesn't concern me." and her jaw dropped.

That's the snake talking... not you.

Greg

[Darrell Hougen]

I explained why in my response to selene. But I'll explain why in more detail here:

At the beginning of the auction, Alice bids $1, because she thinks that there is a 50% chance that Bob will drop out and she will get $19. There is also a 50% chance that Bob will bid $2 and win the auction, in which case she loses $1. Her expected gains for bidding on the first round is 0.5*19 - 0.5*1 = $9, while her expected gains for not bidding at all is $0. Thus, she should bid $1 on the first round. Similarly for Bob. Since Alice has already bid $1, he needs to bid $2 to win. If he does, his expected gains are 0.5*18 - 0.5*2 = $8, which is more than if he doesn't, i.e. $0.

This goes on and on until the bid is at $10. At this point, Alice reasons, well if Bob bids more than $10, then his expected gains would be negative, so he won't bid more than $10, and Alice can certainly win the auction by betting $11 and getting $9. Bob, of course, is thinking the same thing and so he tries to bet more than $10.

Once the bid reaches $20, the same reasoning applies as in the first paragraph, except in this case each player is trying to minimize his losses. But by that point, Carl has already won.

I should also point out that there is another error in the reasoning above. It is rational to make an investment if a person's future expected profit is greater than what he would expect to gain from some other investment. But, as soon as Bob or Alice recognizes the nature of the game and thus of the trap, they each can see that it is not in their interest to continue to bid higher (unless they know they can win).

Part of the problem is the assumption of a 50% probability that the other party will drop out after each bid. In fact, it is impossible to know the probability of the other party dropping out. I know that in the case complete ignorance, it is standard to assume a probability of 50%. However, that isn't always sensible. In fact, if both parties assume a probability of 50% of the other party dropping out, then paradoxically, the probability of either party dropping out is nearly zero.

If we assume a probability of 5% that Alice will drop out after the next bid, then if Alice had bid $1, Bob's expected payoff from bidding $2 would be 0.05 * 18 - 0.95 * 2 = -$1.00. So, if Bob were a little smart about how he decided to bid, he might never bid.

Darrell

In the first post that I quoted, you calculated the expected payoff one way. Later, you used a different method. I'll get to that in a moment.

Hi Naomi,

Welcome to OL.

I think the problem is your analysis of what is rational behavior. Your premise is that Bob and Alice must participate if they are rational because your reasoning shows --- I didn't follow your link --- that they are always better off if they continue the game then if they don't. I think that reasoning is faulty.

For example, the original problem doesn't say how large a bid can be, so why wouldn't Alice, if she went first, bid $19 or $19.99? Then, it would be impossible to Bob to place a bid that would allow him to profit, so he wouldn't bid and Alice would win and Carl would lose ($1 or $0.01).

My objection here is that Alice cannot know how Bob will choose between two options he values equally. If he expects to gain nothing by participating and also nothing by not, then he may still choose to participate. This would give Alice an expected utility of 0.5*0.01 = 0.005, whereas bidding just $0.01 gives her an expected utility of 19.99*0.5 + 0.5*0 = 9.995. However, even if she knew that Bob would not participate if she bid $19.99, it still wouldn't resolve the issue, because then her expected utility would only be 0.01 which is still much much lower than the 9.995 she gets from bidding 1 cent.

Another possibility would be for Alice to say, "Hey Bob, I'll bid $1 and if you don't bid anything, I'll share the profit with you, 50/50." If Bob agreed, Bob and Alice would each come out $9.50 ahead and Carl would be out $19.

Another person in the thread tried a similar scheme. But it also fails because there is a powerful temptation to break the agreement. This is because, after they make the agreement, and Bob bids $1, then Alice can only expect to gain $9.50 if she keeps to the agreement, but she can expect to gain $18, almost twice as much, if she breaks it.

I suspect that the actual expected payoff is zero if Alice and Bob just keep bidding the way you've described. If the expected payoff is zero using the standard approach, then either of the above approaches is better because they have a positive expected payoff. So, for example, there would be a strong incentive for Bob to keep the agreement. (You switched the roles of Bob and Alice in your response.)

What is the fraud being committed in my example? The hypothetical software company knows that people are bombarded with licensing agreements all the time and don't have time or resources to read them all in detail every time. So, the hypothetical software company is taking advantage of the ignorance of the person installing the software in order to attempt to enrich its owners at the expense of unsuspecting clients. That is a type of fraud.

The question is, does the person entering into an agreement have a reasonable expectation that the agreement will be mutually beneficial to both parties? I think the answer is yes, with some caveats involving small amounts of money or entertainment related activities. If you didn't enjoy the movie, that's just too bad, etc.

Darrell

I'm inclined to agree with you that Carl is preying on Alice and Bob by taking advantage of the circumstances. My only comment here is that using someone's ignorance against them in this way doesn't seem to fit the usual definition of fraud. This is not a trivial issue since many people in this thread didn't think that any form of fraud was being perpetrated.

I would like to see other people's responses. However, I think that preying on ignorance does meet the usual definition of fraud. However, we can debate that.

I should also point out that there is another error in the reasoning above. It is rational to make an investment if a person's future expected profit is greater than what he would expect to gain from some other investment. But, as soon as Bob or Alice recognizes the nature of the game and thus of the trap, they each can see that it is not in their interest to continue to bid higher (unless they know they can win).

Nonetheless, they have to, because, once they are in the game, they each expect the other to back down first because they still have to maximize their gains. And so, neither of them backs down even if they recognize that they are caught in an escalation game.

Not true. As soon as they realize they are caught in an escalation game, they realize that their expected payoff is zero or negative. In that case, their best strategy --- the strategy that will minimize their losses --- is to drop out as quickly as possible.

Part of the problem is the assumption of a 50% probability that the other party will drop out after each bid. In fact, it is impossible to know the probability of the other party dropping out. I know that in the case complete ignorance, it is standard to assume a probability of 50%. However, that isn't always sensible. In fact, if both parties assume a probability of 50% of the other party dropping out, then paradoxically, the probability of either party dropping out is nearly zero.

If we assume a probability of 5% that Alice will drop out after the next bid, then if Alice had bid $1, Bob's expected payoff from bidding $2 would be 0.05 * 18 - 0.95 * 2 = -$1.00. So, if Bob were a little smart about how he decided to bid, he might never bid.

Two problems here:

1) There is a slight error in your calculation, which should be 0.05*18 + 0.95*0 = 0.90, because if Alice doesn't drop out, it doesn't mean that Bob will lose $2, just that the game continues. What this also shows is that the probabilities that players assign are quite irrelevant to the outcome, because every nonzero probability of somebody dropping out leads to a positive payoff.

2) Why should anybody assume that there is a 5% probability that Alice will drop out after the next bid, rather than some other probability? We could, with just as much justification, assume that there is a 95% probability that Alice will drop out after the next bid. The point of assigning equal probability to all events in a state of total ignorance is to avoid leaving yourself vulnerable to exploitation.

In your earlier post, you stated, "Since Alice has already bid $1, he needs to bid $2 to win. If he does, his expected gains are 0.5*18 - 0.5*2 = $8, which is more than if he doesn't, i.e. $0."

Now, you're saying, "There is a slight error in your calculation, which should be 0.05*18 + 0.95*0 = 0.90, because if Alice doesn't drop out, it doesn't mean that Bob will lose $2, just that the game continues."

So, if p is the probability that Alice will drop out, your original calculation was, G = p * 18 - (1 - p) * 2. Or, perhaps you meant G = p * 18 - p * 2. In either case, your latter calculation is not the same as your original.

In the latter case, the gain would always be positive, but is that calculation correct? I don't think so, but I'll come back to that in a moment.

You stated, "The point of assigning equal probability to all events in a state of total ignorance is to avoid leaving yourself vulnerable to exploitation."

I agree that that is indeed the point. The problem is that in this case you are leaving yourself vulnerable to exploitation exactly by assuming that the probability that Alice will drop out after the next bid is 50%. You've proven that. In fact, you've argued quite persuasively that if both players make the maximum entropy assumption, that neither player will drop out, ever (or until they run out of money). But, that means that the probability of the other player dropping out is essentially zero. If that's true, then the expected payoff is also essentially zero using your calculation.

The fact is that not every situation in which one is ignorant --- lacking information --- is a valid probability problem. There may be no rational way to assign probabilities in certain circumstances. It's sort of like trying to time the stock market. If everyone is equally well informed, there is no way to do better than average. As you said in another post, no matter what scheme you devise, you can't expect to win. If that is the case, then your expected payoff is zero or negative. So, unlike a naive analysis might suggest, it is not rational to play the game. It is not rational to bid any amount greater than zero.

Darrell

[SoAMadDeathWish]

In the first post that I quoted, you calculated the expected payoff one way. Later, you used a different method. I'll get to that in a moment.

I noticed this too and I went to the library today to get some books and figure out what exactly was going wrong. As it turns out, both calculations are wrong. The game is not sequential, despite being turn-based. In a sequential game, neither player is allowed to switch strategies, but this is obviously untrue for the auction. The problem is that the game-tree is infinite, and so one cannot get an accurate picture of what's going on by picking an arbitrary cutoff point and trying to calculate from there.

The right way to look at it is, at each point of the game, for each player to ask whether or not to drop out. At the beginning of the game, dropping out gives you $0 as does bidding only $0, so there is no reason to play the game, but there is also no reason not to. I'll get to this a little later. Assume that the game begins anyway. Then, at each round n ( n greater than or equal to 0), the value of dropping out (for the player who bids first and with 1 dollar increments) is -( 2n + 1), whereas the value of not dropping out is p*(20 - n - 1), where p is the probability that the opponent will drop out. Now, a player should drop out only when -(2n + 1) > p*(20 - n - 1), i.e. when there is more to gain by dropping out than continuing with a probability p of the other player dropping out. Solving this inequality for n we have,

n < (19p +1)/(2(p - 1)),

and for the even player we have,

n < 10p/(p -1)

But the term on the right hand side is negative for all p whereas n is always non-negative. Thus, for both players, once the game has started, it is always better to continue than to drop out, regardless of the probability of the other player dropping out. Unless, of course, the probability of the other player dropping out is 1, in which case the analysis is slightly different but the conclusion is the same. If p is 1, then the calculation is -2n - 1 > 20 - 2n - 1 leads to 0 > 20 which is false, and we conclude that it is not better to drop out of the auction if the other player is guaranteed to drop out on his next turn.

Not true. As soon as they realize they are caught in an escalation game, they realize that their expected payoff is zero or negative. In that case, their best strategy --- the strategy that will minimize their losses --- is to drop out as quickly as possible.

This is incorrect as the calculation above shows, because they have to minimize their losses. The best way to do this is to win the $20 from Carl rather than drop out immediately because that will reduce the loss by $20.

I agree that that is indeed the point. The problem is that in this case you are leaving yourself vulnerable to exploitation exactly by assuming that the probability that Alice will drop out after the next bid is 50%. You've proven that. In fact, you've argued quite persuasively that if both players make the maximum entropy assumption, that neither player will drop out, ever (or until they run out of money). But, that means that the probability of the other player dropping out is essentially zero. If that's true, then the expected payoff is also essentially zero using your calculation.

The fact is that not every situation in which one is ignorant --- lacking information --- is a valid probability problem. There may be no rational way to assign probabilities in certain circumstances. It's sort of like trying to time the stock market. If everyone is equally well informed, there is no way to do better than average. As you said in another post, no matter what scheme you devise, you can't expect to win. If that is the case, then your expected payoff is zero or negative. So, unlike a naive analysis might suggest, it is not rational to play the game. It is not rational to bid any amount greater than zero.

This brings us to the important point. As the expected value of dropping out of the auction at the beginning is $0 and the value of bidding $0 on the first move is also $0, there is no reason to drop out right at the beginning nor is there any reason not to.

Now, if it is, in fact, true that it is rational not to play, and Alice deduces this, Bob can deduce that Alice would deduce that and thus predict that she will drop out at the beginning. He can then bid $0 and win $20. This means that an irrational agent would outperform a rational one, which is a problem if you think that reason should be one's guide to action.