Yes, heads is supposed to be obvious/prominent/conventional/canonical.
Schelling actually did a small scale experiment (though with $2 instead of $1). His results: 16 out of 22 A’s and 15 out of 22 B’s chose heads.
If heads vs. tails seems too balanced to you, try this (from the book verbatim):
You and your two partners or rivals each have one of the letters A, B, and C. Each of you is to write these three letters. A, B, and C, in any order. If the order is the same on all three of your lists, you get prizes totaling $6, of which $3 goes to the one whose letter is first on all three lists, $2 to the one whose letter is second, and $1 to the person whose letter is third. If the letters are not in identical order on all three lists, none of you gets anything. Your letter is A/B/C.
Results:
9 out of 12 A’s, 10 out of 12 B’s, and 14 out of 16 C’s, successfully co-ordinating on ABC.
9 out of 12 A’s, 10 out of 12 B’s, and 14 out of 16 C’s, successfully co-ordinating on ABC.
That’s 3/4ths of As, 5/6ths of Bs, and 7/8ths of C’s. I’m mildly (pleasantly) surprised that more people coordinated into giving themselves small prizes than coordinated into giving themselves larger prizes.
Yeah, I think that example is more clear—but it’s nice to see that the prediction worked in the heads/tails case!
I guess I didn’t hit on the “point” immediately, though I got it after rereading due to confusion. If I’m not an outlier it might help to hammer on it a little more—some choices are more ‘obvious’ ‘landmarks’ and for no other reason are attractors.
Apologies for not being clear.
Yes, heads is supposed to be obvious/prominent/conventional/canonical.
Schelling actually did a small scale experiment (though with $2 instead of $1). His results: 16 out of 22 A’s and 15 out of 22 B’s chose heads.
If heads vs. tails seems too balanced to you, try this (from the book verbatim):
Results:
That’s 3/4ths of As, 5/6ths of Bs, and 7/8ths of C’s. I’m mildly (pleasantly) surprised that more people coordinated into giving themselves small prizes than coordinated into giving themselves larger prizes.
Yeah, I think that example is more clear—but it’s nice to see that the prediction worked in the heads/tails case!
I guess I didn’t hit on the “point” immediately, though I got it after rereading due to confusion. If I’m not an outlier it might help to hammer on it a little more—some choices are more ‘obvious’ ‘landmarks’ and for no other reason are attractors.