In class earlier this week, we rebooted the idea of the prisoner’s dilemma as previously portrayed on The Bachelor Pad (discussed on the Freakonomics Blog and four years ago on this site). This time, the conversation revolved around a British game show called Golden Balls that was very popular several years ago. I can only assume that you’ve already discounted Golden Balls’ educational value based on its name alone but bear with me . . .
The typical scenario plays out like this: two parties sitting across from one another with one crucial decision that decides how a lump sum of money will be divided. That decision revolves around the four golden balls that sit on the table. Each part can anonymously choose their split ball or their steal ball. If they both steal, they walk away with nothing. If they both split, they split the money. However, if one contestant chooses to split and the other chooses to steal, the thief will walk away with all of the money.
The typical situation ends something like this. But one contestant shows us a unique way to handle the prisoner’s dilemma in this video. Most importantly for class, some good commentary on the second situation can be found here. The class really enjoyed learning the real story behind the winning strategy. Enjoy the show!
Although I was annoyed with the “stealing man’s” tactic when I first watched the clip, I thought he had a brilliant strategy. Keep in mind, both players lose if they both pick steal. In order to win, you need to convince the other player he should pick split. If the other player picks split, you can (1) pick steal and win all of the money, or (2) pick split and split the money with the other player. To convince the opponent to pick split, you need the opposing player to trust you, which is a difficult thing to accomplish. The woman in the first video was able to convince the opposing player to split. However, if I was in his position, I would not have trusted her. A lot of money is at stake, and I am going to assume that my opponent is thinking about herself and trying to make a fool of me. When you do not trust the opponent and suspect she is going to pick steal, you know you are going to lose no matter which option you choose. That is why the “stealing man’s” tactic was brilliant. He pulls the participants out of this awful cycle and coerces, i mean, convinces his opponent to pick split. Man 2, and anyone in his position, would have suspected that the “stealing man” would have picked steal; the “stealing man” just shamelessly states what he is going to do. The “stealing man” convinces Man 2 of what he already knows: He will only win if he picks split. If I was in Man 2’s position, I would have been frustrated with the “stealing man” because I would have felt bullied. However, I would have also eventually picked split because then I would have a chance to win. (Frankly, if I was in Man 2’s position, I would have created a written contract, to ensure the “stealing man” does not go back on his word when the game finished. However, that is probably not allowed in the rules of the game.) Ultimately, I think that although I would have felt bullied during the negotiation, I would focus on the fact that my goal to win money on the game was achieved and my interest was met. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we often get wrapped up in our own interests, positions, and “winning,” so we fail to see the big picture and commonalities.
I usually shy away from being positional. I would rather use a problem-solving approach because I think that a positional approach can very easily dissolve into a negative, hostile dispute. A problem-solving approach gives you more opportunities for creative solutions, and the parties are more likely to accept creative options that they have worked together to create.
I thought the “stealing man” was brilliant. He used negative traits of human nature to his advantage in a way that ended up being beneficial to both contestants. Where most people would be conniving and dishonest in order to selfishly win the entire amount themselves, the “stealing man” was conniving and dishonest in order to allow both people to win and share the amount.
It is interesting that the stealing man took it as a given that most people would lie and pretend that they were going to pick “split” and then at the last second they would actually decide to “steal” so that they could win the entire amount. The stealing man ironically used that same tactic to produce an entirely opposite result.
How he ever persuaded the other man to actually pick “split” is beyond me, especially considering he was dedicated and not backing down from his decision to pick “steal.” The stealing man said he would split the money with the other guy after the show, but I fail to see how the other guy fell for that at all, let alone actually believed that it would happen. The “stealing man’s” strategy was so surprising and bizarre, that maybe the other man went along with it just to see what in the world was going to come out of this behavior.
I’ve showed the video clips to my friends and family, and they were shocked by the second one with the “stealing man”. They were amazed and also somewhat baffled by the ultimate outcome. I also played them the after contest commentary and they were surprised to find out that some of the things said during the negotiation/decision making process were not true at all, yet extremely convincing, particularly the part regarding what the one contestant’s father had taught him and then come to find out, that contestant had not even grown up with his father.
As the commentary states, the show displays the ugliest and the worst in people, but it also displays how the ugliest and the worst in people can be a tactic or a strategy to produce the best result for all the parties involved.
I agree with Andrew in the sense that the tactic that the “stealing” man in the second video used changed the structure of the negotiations; however, I think it was done in a selfish way. The stealing man (let’s call him Man 1) essentially forced the other contestant (Man 2) into choosing split if he wanted even a slight chance of winning any money (whether during the show or after from Man 1). In my opinion, this was a bullying tactic that should not be used in negotiations. I understand that being an advocate for yourself means taking a positional stance at times, but it is not a good way to maintain relationships or create relationships with the other person going forward. In this situation, Man 1 and Man 2 likely did not know each other before being on the show together, so the relationship issue is not as big of a factor as it could be in negotiations. Maybe I am an idealistic negotiator, but I would prefer people to be open and honest, even if it means splitting the money pot.
This game show was an example of the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma from game theory. However, we witnessed two very different episodes of this show. First, we watched a show where both contestants agreed to split the final pot; however one competitor lied and ended up picking steal. This showcased the two completely different incentives that were offered and the choices the people made. The contestant who picked steal, showed the role of the bulldog and the aggressor and deceived, yet won all the money. The losing contestant was seen as the doormat and was the loveable loser that had been tricked out of all the money.
However, the second episode of this show was completely different. The one contestant claimed that he was picking steal no matter what and that he would split the money with the contestant after the show. No one ever picks steal so blatantly and I was surprised when I watched this happen. However, after the conclusion of the show and class discussion I became aware of what had occurred. Either the incentive of being the doormat or the bulldog was not appealing to this contestant so he wanted to change the incentive structures of the game. By picking steal and then being determined to his position, he converted the opposing contestant to change his mind. His opponent was planning on stealing, however he convinced him to split and then the he in turn picked split as well. His reliance in changing the game and the perceived outcomes showcased an essential tool of negotiation. There are always ways to change the game and a negotiator should seek to move away from any preconceived outcomes and notions. The game is not set in stone and there always ways to change the game.