Another one of those button questions.

[a500lbgorilla]

You're not, like, bargaining with the button. The point is to name your lowest price in games like this. There's only one button and it has a fixed price. If that fixed price were 10 cents, her answer would be "no", if it was a dollar her answer would be "no", if it were 40 million her answer would be "yes", if it were 300 million her answer would be "yes". Somewhere between those the answer changes from "no" to "yes" and the point is finding that number, which she claims is 4 million.

Why not? The button can't say no. Why should there be a 500k magic button and not 500M?

Why should anyone say yes at 4 mil if they could just as easily have 40 mil?

[kiwiMark]

Why not? The button can't say no. Why should there be a 500k magic button and not 500M?

Why should anyone say yes at 4 mil if they could just as easily have 40 mil?

I hate to be the guy to break it to you, but the button doesn't exist. The point of the exercise is, as I said, to find somebody's lowest price. If we're living in your world why does the button kill me 1% of the time when it could kill me 0% of the time?

[a500lbgorilla]

I hate to be the guy to break it to you, but the button doesn't exist. The point of the exercise is, as I said, to find somebody's lowest price. If we're living in your world why does the button kill me 1% of the time when it could kill me 0% of the time?

I said it before, if that's your goal, the question isn't right. There's a better way to ask it. If you want to force someone towards their minimum, you need a force.

[kiwiMark]

I said it before, if that's your goal, the question isn't right. There's a better way to ask it. If you want to force someone towards their minimum, you need a force.

why though? If I were selling you a lovely pair of shoes I'd agree, but since there's no way this button can ever exist, I don't see the problem with just asking. nor does the girl you asked apparently, or anybody else in this thread

[a500lbgorilla]

why though? If I were selling you a lovely pair of shoes I'd agree, but since there's no way this button can ever exist, I don't see the problem with just asking. nor does the girl you asked apparently, or anybody else in this thread

k

[Renton]

I'm interested to see which posts you think belong to this school of thought

Pretty much everyone who is saying they'd never do it for any amount.

why though? If I were selling you a lovely pair of shoes I'd agree, but since there's no way this button can ever exist, I don't see the problem with just asking. nor does the girl you asked apparently, or anybody else in this thread

Yeah idk it seems simple enough. The question is obviously only interesting if we're talking about the minimum, so logic follows that the minimum is what I'm after. If I wasn't clear about that I'm sorry.

[NightGizmo]

It seems like one major school of thought exhibited in this thread is that life has infinite value and 1% of infinity is still infinity. The flaw in that logic is revealed, however, when we lower the odds. 0.0001% of infinity is still infinity, yet most of us are willing to take such gambles without losing much sweat.

It's not that life has infinite value. It's that the money doesn't improve my life enough to run a 1% risk of losing my life. And as the amount you win gets larger, you quickly run into a situation of diminishing returns (of life improvement from the money).

But that's a personal decision, not an absolute maxim. For someone that is poor and hates being poor, getting a large lump sum would drastically change his life for the better. So pushing the button would be a no-brainer at some dollar amount.

For me to even consider pushing the button, the question would have to be rephrased: "How much money would you have to win and how low would the risk of death need to be?" If you can control those variables, then I don't think anyone could honestly say they would never push the button.