Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: Grek on July 15, 2011, 12:11:10 am

For those of you that said yes to eating Wilbur, would you also say yes to eating Rubilw, who is a human being that has been genetically modified into wanting to be eaten?

I'm not really into cannibalism but I don't really see a major ethical problem in that. Really, I don't get the whole fuss about Soylent Green being people either. In a world that's rapidly running out of resources, why not eat dead humans that have been made into nutritious edible pellets? They were even killed in a very peaceful manner (and voluntarily).


Actually, now that I mentioned Soylent Green, why not post your opinions as well about the situation from the movie? The situation goes as follows: The world is overcrowded and food is scarce. The two main food sources as soy/lentil pellets called Soylent. A new brand of Soylent, Soylent Green, is released for sale. It's relatively cheap, tasty and plentiful. Then you happen to learn that Soylent Green is being produced from the bodies of the dead humans. No one is being killed for manufacturing the product, as the bodies are collected from euthanasia plants. While the actual movie had a somewhat more grim scenario (it was somehow related to criminal activities, evil corporations and the environment being in almost irrecovable condition), let's stick with this one: what would you do if you learned that Soylent Green was made out of people?

This is somewhat a reminder of the recycling tanks in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

"It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and become one with all the people."

(How nice if it can be used on drones, then there will be no unhappy )

...
Uh, I think you're being the stupid one, or then you just didn't read the problem carefully enough.
Oh, I see what you mean. However, it is pointless to demand 200$ unless you have a real reason to believe that your opponent will demand the same (and even then you could optimize by lowering your request slightly to gather the bonus at the other guy's expense). If I got 100$ for someone who greedily just wants it all, I'd consider the other person stupid for not thinking his strategy through.

 

Despite all the theory or mathematical analysis, for I personally - if it's a one-shot deal, the economics in me will choose $50. And the good and fair guy in me, will want to show some quality and generosity of choosing $150. Since sometimes good guys are meant to be "dumb" and not gaining benefits from other people's lost. Whatever my coworker choose, he/she will always get at least $100, which is like a half of max, and quite a decent amount. And if he/she doesn't think its enough, I'll probably give some of the bonus back.

On the other hand, if he/she chooses from $100~$150, I'll call it fair, because at least both of us get more than minimum. But if he/she chooses to be mean and cheap choosing below $100, thus tries to rip off me, then he/she should know that the actual winner in choosing the low price is "the insurance company", since in that case the insurance company pays the least. And that's why its a good policy for insurance companies, but not for people try to claim the insurances. (And economists love the game of maximizing profits, and zero margins)

The knapsack problem isn't really an ethical dilemma, but a mathematical problem. For simplicity, I'll assume that the price demands are multiples of 25$ (50, 75, 100 et cetera).

If the players expect the other player to co-operate, they should choose the high price. However, if a player expects the other to try and maximize their own reward, he/she should choose the minimum amount (50$). This is because of a reasoning chain:

A: Hmm I could maximize my profits by asking for 200$
A: No, wait... If B puts 200$ as well, I can get more by putting a slightly lower demand, like 175$...
A: But then again, B is probably thinking just like me, so I'll place it to 150$ where I still get 200$ if he's higher...

Eventually, A chooses 50$. A and B get 50$ each OR in the event B had a higher demand, A gets 100$ and B gets none.


Funny fact: If both players choose the minimum amount, they can now know for the rest of their lives that the other guy doen't really trust them

It's not just math problems, but more like testing your view of "the trust-worthy of people" around you. If you view them high, and think they are as generous as you, then people will fill a number very close to the top. But as you said, if you think people are always calculated and mean, then you will think of filling the lowest number, because you have everything to gain, but nothing to lose. Which by the way, is the equilibrium answer game theory predicted - if people are rational machines, then people will assume everyone else are bastards.  (In a out of proportion example, like range $2~$100 with bonus just $2, and game theory will predict a equilibrium of everyone choosing the lowest $2, which is kind of ridiculous.)

And actual experiment results with general people (none-professionals), show that there are often 3 major groups appear - 1 group choose a very high price very closely, 1 group loosely concentrate in the middle, and some (not much) choose the lowest.

reference
S. Cabrera, C. Capra, R. Gómez, "Behavior in one-shot traveler’s dilemma games: model and experiments with advice", Spanish Economic Review, Vol. 9, No. 2. (1 June 2007), pp. 129-152.

Probably the modest range.

If the bonus is just trivia like $5, then the "winner" say chooses $180 (vs coworker - $200) will get $185, and only "punishes" the loser which receiving $175. And in this case, people will tend to choose very high. But game theory predicted that the amount of incentive will not change the balance result. And a pattern emerges that people will tend to choose between (max-bonus) to (max-2*bonus)

So I am curious if the bonus is in the middle like $20, and drop the lowest price to range $20~$200, and leave with 9 level of options ($20~$40, $40~$60, ..., $180~$200) what would be the result? (But this will leave the test more of an economics test than a moral test) Maybe I will create a separate that just for psychological/economical test. (With no options but, pure numbers)

Unfortunately, I am out of ideas. Given this turn of events, I feel that it is time we go to Purple Alert.

Have we tried the "good old" game theory related dilemma? I have one of the traveler's dilemma and I adapt it into a more realistic scenario, but not sure it's related to ethical or not. It's a price related problem, but also testing if you are greedy, honest, or cunning /calculated.

---

Let's say you and your coworker went on a business trip, and you two are not that familiar with each other, but just share the same flights. Each of you is given an identical company-issued suitcase. And on your return flight, an unfortunate event happened : the flight company lost both of your luggage.

The insurance company will pay the loss in cash, so you /your coworker can buy new suitcase to return them to the company for compensations. Although the insurance company wants both of you write down the assessment value of the suitcase first.

The insurance company already knew a suitcase is worth $50 to $200 on the market, but doesn't know what kind of suitcase you are using, they are lost after all. Its just both of your words count. And your own company doesn't care what kind of suitcase you replaced, as long as they are available to use, and your company don't keep detailed records.   

But the insurance company is cleaver to set up a mechanism for this kind of situation, so no one will try to cheat on filling the highest price. You and your co-worker each fill a number separately, not knowing the answer of another, and the insurance company will choose the lower price from your answers. There is also an incentive to promote "honesty", and punish liars, that the one who fill the lower number will receive a bonus of $50. And on the other hand, "the liar" (who fills higher price) will not just compensate using the common honest price (lower price), but also minus the $50 as punishment which will be given as another one's reward. Or if you both choose the same, then there will be no reward or punishment. (But given not knowing what other will do, and the price range is large, so not likely to choose the same price).

And here is the choices :
1. Choose a high / greedy price (from $150~$200)
2. Choose a middle / modest price (from $100~$150)
3. Choose a low / calculated price (from $50~$100)
*. Always choose the lowest $50, and highest $200 can be added as options.
(Perhaps it can be divided into more level like every $25 with 6 level, or $30 for 5 level)

Extra : you may think you can go online and check the real price of that particular suitcase price, but it's not relevant here. Since the only factor are what you think your coworker will choose, and the only ones in the world who know(and case) what kind of suitcases you used are the two of you. Is your word against another.

A quick evaluation I can tell you, if you choose the lowest price, and your coworker choose anything higher, will grant you $100 ($50 for price + $50 bonus), and leave your coworker with $0 ($50 price - $50 punishment). On the other case, if you choose very high, like $170 and you coworker is even more greedy to choose $200, then your will get more than the highest price as $220 ($170+$50) and your coworker get $120 ($170-$50). However, if your coworker choose a not so greedy price of $150, then he/she will get $200 ($150+$50), and leaves your only $100 ($150-$50).

P.S game theory has its prediction on this one, but I am not convinced that people will actually make that decision.   

As my screen name implied, that I am obsessed with calculating and counting numbers/math problems. If the number have certain characteristic that doesn't satisfied my expectations, I'll do it again and again. And I'll drifted away sometimes on the road with calculating meaningless things, or trying to quantified things like how many cars can cross the intersections from a certain directions with different probabilities, But luckily I am very good at mental arithmetic.

Quote from: G-Flex on July 12, 2011, 03:56:47 pm

I believe most of the non-traditional soy sauce here uses acid-hydrolyzed soy protein.

In the US, there are no labeling restrictions, though, probably because it's less of a traditional food here. No matter how you make it, you can still call it "soy sauce". I have no idea if the FDA has a restricted legal definition of it at all.

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074419.htm

And I was wrong. It's not fluoric acid, it's hydrochloric acid. 


It occurred to me that there's probably a good chance of melamine being used in sketchy soy production too. Soy sauce is graded based on nitrogen content. The higher the nitrogen level, the higher quality the proteins in the sauce, and so the higher quality of the sauce as a whole.
Melamine has been the cheat of choice for boosting nitrogen levels in the past in things like milk (which is also graded based on nitrogen content as an indirect measure of protein quality).

I believed that I heard some news about it several years ago when it's a big news internationally. And soy source are one of them too.

Quote from: counting on July 12, 2011, 03:07:10 pm

Actually I've even heard that some bad companies in China, using chemical process to break down soybeans to make soy source.

Well yeah, the non-fermented soy sauce is always made that way. You use acids to hydrolyze the soy protein. Of course, I'm sure the details vary. You might be thinking of something more specific, since hydrolyzing soy protein is surely not illegal... there are probably other things going on.

The kind that is illegal is a kind of synthetic one. Which using some coloring and salt waters with acid and none fermented process (chemical), which can be produced like in days. They are 合成醬油(synthetic), the most extreme with no soybean in them are illegal, some others are not (but not recommended to ingest too often). By the contrast that the traditional 釀造醬油 will takes at least half a year of fermenting.

Since the traditional way takes too long, there is a new kind which is either a hybrid of concentrated real soy source with salt waters 混合/配制, with using enzyme (extracted from vegetation, or very recently using biotech and purify enzyme from the bacteria 麴菌) to break down the soybean, hence speed up the production time (from weeks to months). They are not technically fermented, but essentially they are more like speedup (some) bio-processes, but the tastes are definitely different. This kind is legal, but required by law that it must be label as such on the bottle. And I guess this kind is the one that are most likely been used in the western world, since it's a lot cheaper (several times cheaper, still different from the synthetic one). And frankly as I still saw both on the market here, and people tend to buy the traditional ones, I doubt people else where can tell.