Oh shit, what do?

>have to rely on the other brainlets in your class
just pick 6

>If you and everyone else does, you lose nothing. It's already extra credit.
Republican detected.

Pick the 6 points. Amerifags are retarded altruists, so they'll pick the 2 points option.

Wait what? I'm actually a moderate liberal, where's the republican connection come in?

My gut says six, people are dumb sheep who will play it safe and go with 2.

I forgot to add: that's out of how many points?

Those who would pick 2:
Those who would pick 6:
>b-b-but I'm sure most p-people will pick two! I'm s-s-smart, guys. I swear!

>Being altruist and making sure everyone gets +2 makes you dumb
This is why the West is falling. Truly decadent thought.

Select 6 because you are unlikely to significantly affect the overall results (any if over 10% pick 6 you get nothing even if you picked 2). Even if you pick 2 it will be unlikely to make the fact that 10% of the class did or did not choose 6 change, so might as well just go for 6.

Alternatively collaborate with the rest of your class to make it so less than 10% pick 6. Have a rock paper scissors tournament or something simple like that.

>he needs extra credit in the first place
If you're actually smart, select 6 because you're getting an A anyway

edgy intp/intj memers on Veeky Forums = average uni normie.

wowee user u rely nailed that1

The only way it's disadvantageous to pick 6 is if exactly enough other people pick it so that one person makes the difference. If you consider 2 the default, you can look at choosing 6 as risking 2 points to try to gain 4 with the odds being in your favor, so there's really no reason not to do it.

If the options were "get 10 pts" or "delete everybody else's pts", I would pick the latter
fucking pigs
just pick 6 and fuck them in the arse, nobody gets any free points

10%... my class is around 150 people, that would mean that if my teacher were to do the same, as soon as 16 people chose the 6 points options, no one would get anything.

And if you don't think that at least 16 people would not choose the 6 point options just look at this thread of 20 posters saying that they would take the 6 points.

Also, the teacher is not doing this transparently, so in reality you would be just playing this game for his entertainment and no one is going to get the points anyway since you can't tell the difference between this being true or not unless he releases the verified responses.

So choose 6, and let your teacher make an article about "human greed" or "egoism" or give him one little anecdote to tell in class, in this way at least you will get some too fun out of it and in the slight case it actually happens you get 6 points, which in comparison to 2, seem to be far more meaningful for your grade scores.

6 obviously. Best case no-one else picks it, worst case no-one at all gets a bonus.

> muh game theory
You must provide some concrete reasoning and actual calculation.
Just going "m-muh game theory!" makes you sound like a retard who doesn't actually know the subject deeply, but heard the term on some popsci article.
Am I wrong?

In game theory you would pick 2 you retard.
t. actually took a course on game theory

You would also do so with an air of dejection as you would know that the prisoners are always greedy.

Briers migg or whatever the name is, which is not even worth remembering, is pseudoscience and wrong buddy.

indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf

my average in the class is like 99.9%, so i'd vote 6 points specifically to fuck over all the faggots who would selfishly vote for 6 points.

Natural selection and capitalism go hand in hand. What are you a pussy? Take the 6 points.

Depends how many students are in your class. If it's very large, your picking of 6 wouldn't make a large impact on the percentages of 6 pickers. If it's small, pick 2

What kind of dipshit professor is this?

You're only left with one option, and that is to pick 6.
The reason being is that, assuming most people pick 2, there will be a group that will select 6. Your hopes are to be among the group that pick 6, as you get 6 points. However, if too many people pick 6, then no one, not even those who were conservative and picked 2, will get any points. But in the off-chance that not enough people picked 6, then you get 6 points while the other scrubs get 2.
Basically you're betting that you get 6 or nothing vs. the outcome of receiving 2 or nothing.
Go for the 6 or nothing.

if you've already passed, then pick 6.
that way you'll help stop others passing

This. What a mongoloid trashy professor. Either give the students extra points or don't. I bet he comes home and jerks off to the power trip he gets by doing this.

I hope he just does this to see the outcome and doesn't actually give the points

>tfw people are picking 6 because they think their choice doesn't matter but other people are picking 6 for the same reason

You have to collaborate and communicate with your peers, in isolation people will think the worst of each other and make decisions that fuck everybody up

With repeated iterations of the prisoner's dilemma, the optimal strategy is tit-for-tat. So if your professor is likely to ask this question on future exams, your best bet it to pick 2. In the event that too many people chose 6, you pick 6 on future exams. Otherwise pick 2 again.

In the single iteration prisoner's dilemma, the optimal strategy is to pick 6 because it others are most likely to defect. So if you think your professor won't ask this question on a future exam, pick 6.

If this were my chemistry class, I would pick 6 twice if I could. I got an A+ while the other brainlets were barely passing. Im not going to take 2% so they can have 6% they don't deserve.

he's teaching prisoner's dilemma

i.e.

98%+2%=100%
v
67%+6%=74%

It all depends on how you see the question and whether or not you see grades as competitive.

"Gaining 2 points" is actually falling behind someone else by 4 points
"Gaining 6 points" is actually outscoring 90% of the class by 4 points

From this autistic, hyper-competitive worldview, going for 6 obviously dominates going for 2

>"Gaining 6 points" is actually outscoring 90% of the class by 4 points
No, it's getting 0 points while everyone else gets zero as well. But for people with crab mentality that's better than getting 2 when someone else gets 6

t. retard who can't pass classes without extra credit

>repeating exactly what he said trying to sound contrarian
faggot. many classes are graded on a curve, where top is A+ and it goes down from there. in those classes it's objectively better to pick 6. that's the whole point of the post

I'd rather get 0 than someone else to get undeserving 4 points more than me. I'd choose 6 just to "sabotage" it, so everyone gets the points they deserve in the fucking first place.

>No, it's getting 0 points while everyone else gets zero as well.
But this can (and probably will) still happen, even if you choose to settle for 2 points.

>crab mentality
It's not crab mentality. It's competition.

Why would they differ?

Because American professors do this thing when they grade on a curve, so if you get 2 points and someone 6 you're literally worse off then if everybody got 0 extra points. It's ridiculous but that's how many professors are.
Crab mentality would be if they didn't grade on a curve.

The chance of less than 15 of your classmates choosing 6 is essentially 0. Thus it doesn't matter what you choose.

Again. You pick 6. You lose nothing. It was already extra credit.

Your problem is you're too willing to bend over and get fucked in the ass by the mob.

Everyone picking 6 is the Nash equilibrium.

"Crabs in a bucket" pull other crabs down, even if they themselves can't or won't escape.

It's not an applicable metaphor to a group of people competing for a top score.

So in essence you're arguing for picking 6?

Everyone picking 2 is a communist.

>many classes are graded on a curve, where top is A+ and it goes down from there. in those classes it's objectively better to pick 6. that's the whole point of the post
If it was graded on a curve, then the whole question wouldn't make any sense since then choosing 6 is ALWAYS better than choosing 2

>But this can (and probably will) still happen, even if you choose to settle for 2 points.
It's less likely to happen if you choose 2

What if it was a trick question?

Then I'd choose 2

That's exactly why you should pick 6 because you're either fucked anyway or below the threshold

, So from this example
communism:
>everybody wins a sustainable amount, objectively the best from

Capitalism:
>Greed causes everybody to lose out and unnecessarily makes the situation a zero sum game

Wtf, I'm a communist now

But you can push yourself over the threshold by picking 6

*objectively the best from a utilitarian perspective

2 points to fuck your classmates up. Remember they are your competition, the worse they do then the better it is for you.

OP, please tell us whether this is graded on a curve or not. It makes a huge difference for strategy.

Let's say everyone (including yourself) has the probability p of choosing 6 and the probability 1-p of choosing 2.
Then you can calculate the expected amount of bonus points as a function of p.
Now find the value of p for which this is maximal.

p = 1 maximizes the expected amount on an individual basis how does that help? And if anything you would give p a prior distribution because everyone having the same probability of choosing 6 is a shit assumption.

Pick 6 to sink the others.

>So in essence you're arguing for picking 6?
No, I'm saying that it doesn't matter what you choose. From a purely probabilistic perspective, the chance of less than 15 classmates choosing 6 is negligible. The only way this does not apply is if there is a conspiracy among the classmates, at which point game theory takes over due to the potential for traitors to the agreement.

If p=1 then the expected payoff is 0 and if p=0 then the expected payoff is 2.
So clearly p=1 can never be the maximum.

i forgot about that condition mb

The expected amount of points is always 0 unless p = 0.

Did you take a fucking picture of your computer screen?

Look at the filename retard.

Say there's N people in the class and B is the least integer greater than .1N, so B is the boundary where the total payoff is 0 if B or more people select 6.

Let X ~ Bin(N, p) where p is the probability of choosing 6, so X is the number of people who choose 6 in the class.

The Expected Payoff is defined as (wish I knew how to latex):

E[P] = Sum from m=0 to B-1 of ((6*m + 2(N-m))P(X=m)

So you can maximize the expected payoff cumulatively (which in utilitarian is also the most beneficial to each individual) by finding optimal p given how many people are in the class, still don't see how conveying this probabilistically helps since we could have just said "10% and not more of the people select 6 and we have maximized the total payoff."

Use social engineering to convince the class not to take the survey. DDOS the survey site. Hack the survey site and put in other people's response. Game theory demands that you play dirty.

>if youre not a brainlet then you wont need it anyway

If you are not a brainlet and you won't need it then go for the 6 points in order to fuck over your classmates top kek.

Fuck, I hate game theory.

Choose 2 points, that's the safest path.

Only thing that really matters is if you are the single person which causes the 6 pointers to go over the 10 % threshold. Since that chance is negligible, you should go for 6 points. You end up either with 4 more points or none as you would most likely end anyway.

Communism:
>Nobody gets anything

Capitalism:
>Most people get the little thing, some people get the big thing

The real question to ask is when does 6(chance of 14 or less choosing 6) > 2(chance of 15 or less choosing 6)

The answer is when p < 0.24342

When that's true choose 6

>Irony

>Communism:
>>Nobody gets anything

Nice conservative propaganda right there. Communism is just like capitalism in the sense that "most people get the little thing" and "some people get the big thing". The difference is in freedom.

A communist government can decide who it rewards with the "big thing" and who gets the the little thing. As communist governments of the past have been corrupted and not actual communism, the leaders just chose that the ones who get the big thing are the people with the most allegiance to the country like politicians and bureaucrats. And the ones who get the little thing are people not directly in the government.

In capitalism you have no choice, money rules over everything. A country can't even choose what it values, because money just goes to the biggest monopoly and who can be the most corrupted in their business practices.

At least communism made right could choose to reward moral and hard working people with the big thing, while lazy people get the little thing. Back to /pol/ with you.

I don't like free bonus without merit, isn't the final score supposed to "measure" your knowledge on the subject? I would also really hate to see someone who deserve less get a better grade than me for getting the extra 6 points (even if the initial difference was only

Lol I made the libcuck mad

Have fun with your wageslave job while I'm out the making a difference

You should already have an A in the class so it doesn't matter, pick 6 and fuck everyone else over

>C-cuck
Cuck, short for cuckold, is the automated response given by the /pol/ user when it gets confronted with something it does not understand. This confusional state often results in frog posting and further incoherent ramblings about "muh white genocide", or "muh cultural marxism". The /pol/ user will then often retreat to a safe environment, such as /mlp/, although it is on occasion also observed to 'double down' on its muddled and often prolix confabulations. This latter phenomenon is why the /pol/ user is widely regarded as an archetypal sufferer of double down syndrome.

^people like this are why communism fails, in communism they are allowed to fuck everything up for everyone, in capitalism they are just left to fuck themselves over and be losers on their own

user, we are not talking about wealth but academic merits.
See again the first sentence of my post.

Well no, if everybody is communist and everybody picks 2, then everybody wins. Unless its graded on a curve, then you've just shifted the entire curve so nobody wins anything. And because of the 10% condition, everybody would get nothing. But the truest capitalist option would be all the students communicate, and those who want the 6 points pay everybody else to go for 2 points.

There are many different ways to implement capitalism, if you have a transparent state that works for the people you can break up monopolies, encourage competition and enforce prosecution for practices that are worse for the consumer

>There are many different ways to implement capitalism, if you have a transparent state that works for the people you can break up monopolies, encourage competition and enforce prosecution for practices that are worse for the consumer

True, capitalism can be set up in many different ways. But it always ends the same

>Every starts equally
>100 years go by
>10 families now dominate an industry each
>10 families have so much money that they can pay a politician 100 times his yearly salary to bribe him, and that won't even cost them 0.01% of their wealth
>10 families make sure that the only companies that appear in their industry are either owned by them or financed by them, or connected to them in some other way
>If anyone tries to stop you, bribe more politicians
>Another 100 years go by
>Same 10 families still have all the power

You can start capitalism with the best intentions in mind but because capitalism by definition rewards the ones with the most money, it will always be the same. At the start of a capitalist society it is a scramble to the top and after that the classes are set up. Rich families will always be rich, poor families will always be poor. That is how it works.

irrelevant, the point still stands.
Veeky Forums ≠ normies

this

>everyone knows picking 6 risks getting nothing
>if they're reasonable they'll pick 2 - let's all pick 2 and win
>but that means I can safely pick 6
>but that means everyone else concludes that
>therefore we'd all conclude 2 is the only option
>which means it's safe to pick 6
>turtles

Your professor is running an experiment on the class, therefore you should convince your fellow students to pick via random process to stifle him.

Progressive taxation and heavy inheritance tax that goes into improving and enriching the lower rungs of society sort of gets around that. Inheritance runs countercurrent to the idea of capitalism anyway, which is that people earn money. Inequality of outcome will always exist, but we can try to minimise it and as long as people have similar opportunities, that's all you can do. Absolute wealth rises quicker in capitalism than communism anyway, since money is a good incentive for stuff.

>Your professor is running an experiment on the class
Top kek then the professor is a brainlet because that gamble/game has already been solved for like 300 years. Literally pick 6.

>Progressive taxation and heavy inheritance tax that goes into improving and enriching the lower rungs of society sort of gets around that.

Indeed, and progressive taxation is redistribution of wealth so good to know you are with me, comrade.

> Inheritance runs countercurrent to the idea of capitalism anyway

Indeed, but inheritance is always present in capitalist societies. And if you try to ban inheritance then the rich people will just bribe the politicians to vote against that law, because rich people want to give their money to their kids.

In communism, that wouldn't happen. In a communism that gives wealth for actions, everyone borns in 0. And whenever an old rich person dies, the government should seize their wealth as a dead person can no longer perform moral and good actions, and this is morally correct as this money will then go on to fund new moral actions by the people.

> Inequality of outcome will always exist

And I do not disagree. In Communism there will always be inequality of outcome, but we can choose who gets more than who. In a communism that values morality and deeds for the state then no one will dispute the rich, who would be our best citizens.

>Absolute wealth rises quicker in capitalism than communism anyway, since money is a good incentive for stuff.

And proudly serving your motherland is also a great incentive. Plus, the state will give you money for moral actions so how is that for incentive?

Capitalism was a mistake.

>game theory
>took a course
wew

It's probably trying to be like the prisoner's dilemma, but that only deals with two people. If this guy has a class of 300 people, the difference in probability that 30/300 choose 6 and 29/300 choose 6 is not very much and only shrinks with the size of the class. The expected value of choosing 6 would then be higher. In small classes, it would be closrr to the prisoner's dilemma, in which case you're right

Lol moron, I never browse /pol/. I'm a fucking liberal, dude. I hate Drumpf.

I'm just not a commie.

Redistribution of wealth isnt inherently bad if it makes the whole of society better, so I guess we're comrades in that respect respect

A state where the votes of politicians overrides the will of the people is a shit state and would only pass in undemocratic third world countries like America.

Centralising the reward system seems like it would be inefficient and even more at the mercy of the inefficiencies of an unnecessarily large state.

>proudly serving your motherland
Spook.
>The state giving you money for moral actions
Moral is a very nebulous term, so the state can give money to whomever does what they see as [this word which can mean whatever they want], and this actually lends itself better to monopolies. When individuals can make choices themselves, shit choices are of less magnitude and people control the market more. A state with shitloads of power diverges more and more from enacting the wills of the people.

>I'm a fucking liberal, dude
one post ago you just called a guy a libcuck