Playing the Meta-game

Done. Thanks for the input--apparently I haven't yet internalized de Saint Exupery's admonition.

LOL.

It wasn't just you. I didn't understand it 'till I read further into the post.

I was very confused by the description of the setup as well, but I just kept reading and sense emerged as the actual game was described.

Based on previous feedback, there are a number of things in this story about which I was unclear, so it may very well have been on my end.

That said, I'm rather honored that you put in that degree of effort!

As the consensus seems to be that the latter half of the story diminishes the impact of the former, I've deleted it.

Thanks for the suggestions--it's great to have feedback.

Blast. Not what I was going for at all.

I was trying to focus on the framing issue, to suggest that arguing for rationalist positions in the normal manner is an uphill battle and that one solution is instead to highlight the many ways in which rationalism and its consequents can concretely improve people's lives. The objective, then, would be to make people's introductions to rationalism smoother by emphasizing the light at the end of the tunnel, rather than the (substantial) amount of things they have to internalize before they can get there.

I certainly wasn't intending to flatter myself, and I'd hoped the links justified my statements about rationalism; is there a change you'd suggest that could fix that?

It's true--we discussed that very point afterwards. A fraction of the class was arguing that I should have merely set aside one slip to be unused, made the deals, and then reversed myself and used the final one.

The argument was over whether that was a credible action--and I like your strategy better.

Hmm... I've been thinking about your question the last couple days and I'm really not sure. I haven't really written up my experiences in the field very much, if that's what you're asking. If, on the other hand, you're looking for stories of games played to illustrate game-theoretic concepts, there are lots of places to point for those.

Perhaps you could expand on the type of stories you're looking for?

You're right--and as my professor said, since I had a better initial situation, I should have been able to do at least as well as my opponent.

Tearing up two slips would have been unlikely to beat tearing up one--the latter creates the necessary scarcity (and causes the auction) while not diminishing the total number of deals that much. In fact, since my opponent beat five dollars, I couldn't have won with two torn slips, but I should at least have been even with my opponent, and might (as my reply to CronoDAS notes) have been able to win via a trick.

I could refuse a bad deal, but my partners knew that I was trying to win $20, where they stood to lose at most a dollar relative to agreeing to the deal; they had less to lose, and thereby had a stronger bargaining position (the literature on Nash bargaining is relevant).

He could, but as long as he had all the slips of paper, he can't but gain by going back on the commitment not to trade below a certain split. He can only deal once with each person, so with the same number of slips and co-players, everyone dealing with him knows there's no substantial chance he'll wind up not trading with them at all as long as they're willing to give him a penny of the dollar. As much of the dollar that slip represents as they're willing to hold out for already belongs to them - since if he doesn't use it, he gets nothing, and if he does, he gets some non-zero amount. Only by taking away his own option to use the last slip does there come to be any credible chance that somebody doesn't get to split a buck with him.

Tearing up two slips would likely have lost him the game, however, since the actual winner had obtained over five dollars, and one couldn't manage that with only five slips.