I really hate questions like this. Since they mistake rationality for computer-like adherence to a set of rules.<p>——————————————————————<p>Imagine a 100 rounds of ultimatum games. In each round, Alice proposes a split of $1 and Bob can either accept or reject. If Bob rejects, the $1 is burned in a fire. How much money will each end up with?<p>Lets work backwards, as we do in the pirate game.<p>In ROUND100, Alice knows Bob will take whatever non-zero offer she makes. She can offer him 1 cent and Bob will agree.<p>In ROUND99, Alice knows that Bob can will accept whatever non-zero offer she makes in ROUND100, so she can make whatever non-zero offer she wants this round without fear of repercussion. She offers him 1 cent and knows he will agree.<p>Continuing to work backwards, we find that in all 100 rounds, Alice takes 99 cents and offers Bob 1 cent. Alice ends up with $99 and Bob ends up with $1.<p>——————————————————————<p>This is obviously (and experimentally proven) not what would happen in real life. In experimental outcomes, Bob rejects offers that are too low to broadcast that he is “irrational”. As a result, Bob is able to negotiate a much higher outcome (around 40%).<p>So who is more rational? The &quot;rational&quot; Bob who gets $1, or the “irrational” Bob who gets $40?