You’re calling out the professor for not addressing the larger game of “life” but this post itself seems to be denying Ashley the opportunity to play the larger game of life at all.
For example, Ashley’s demonstration also surely had some gross, if not necessarily net, benefit to her reputation—she showed everyone she is clever, that she can get the approval of the professor, etc.
Ashley may have left class and spent $17.45 neutralizing those hits to her reputation (distribute the money after class, buy everyone a beer, etc.). She would have netted $0.01 more doing this than cooperating.
You’re letting Ashley accrue costs in the larger game, but not letting her accrue benefit in the larger game, which doesn’t seem fair to Ashley or Hamermesh.
Ashley may have left class and spent $17.45 neutralizing those hits to her reputation (distribute the money after class, buy everyone a beer, etc.). She would have netted $0.01 more doing this than cooperating.
Did you miss the part about it being a 500-student class?
I meant the 7 people she “beat” at the game. Besides, have some faith in Ashley’s ability to find a really, really good price-to-performance ratio on reputational gains!
But if she redistributed enough to her friends to make up for what she took, that would have been the original agreement they had made in the first place!
My entire point was that I think it’s possible for Ashley to use her gains from defecting in the PD to more than offset her real-life reputational costs.
Do you disagree with my statement that it is possible to do that?
Yes, I do disagree, because any later redistribution to them will either be a) less than what they would have gotten in the original deal, or b) the same as what it would have been if she had just stuck to the disagreement.
Plus, undoing damage to your reputation is much harder than doing the damage.
You’re calling out the professor for not addressing the larger game of “life” but this post itself seems to be denying Ashley the opportunity to play the larger game of life at all.
For example, Ashley’s demonstration also surely had some gross, if not necessarily net, benefit to her reputation—she showed everyone she is clever, that she can get the approval of the professor, etc.
Ashley may have left class and spent $17.45 neutralizing those hits to her reputation (distribute the money after class, buy everyone a beer, etc.). She would have netted $0.01 more doing this than cooperating.
You’re letting Ashley accrue costs in the larger game, but not letting her accrue benefit in the larger game, which doesn’t seem fair to Ashley or Hamermesh.
Did you miss the part about it being a 500-student class?
I meant the 7 people she “beat” at the game. Besides, have some faith in Ashley’s ability to find a really, really good price-to-performance ratio on reputational gains!
But if she redistributed enough to her friends to make up for what she took, that would have been the original agreement they had made in the first place!
My entire point was that I think it’s possible for Ashley to use her gains from defecting in the PD to more than offset her real-life reputational costs.
Do you disagree with my statement that it is possible to do that?
Yes, I do disagree, because any later redistribution to them will either be a) less than what they would have gotten in the original deal, or b) the same as what it would have been if she had just stuck to the disagreement.
Plus, undoing damage to your reputation is much harder than doing the damage.