While watching the nationally aired television show Deal or No Deal on NBC, I started to notice some similarities in the decision making process compared to what we have been learning about idealism and pragmatism in class. The basic premise of the show is that there are twenty one cases each consisting of a different monetary value. The values are known at the start of the game, but which case contains what value is unknown. The contestant picks a case that they hope has the most value to hold on to. Then the player chooses other cases each at a time to remove them from play, the cases amounts are then instantly disclosed. By the process of elimination the monetary value in the case the player picked to hold on to is gradually revealed. During the game the banker offers the player an amount of money to quit the game. This offer is based on the amounts remaining in play.
This man like many others on Deal or No Deal made a choice that can almost always be seen on this show, but none the less shocks me every time. There were 8 plays still remaining only one was over the offer the banker gave. He had less than a ten percent chance to end up with more money than the banker would offer. The most sense would have been to take the offer. Why he didn’t could be as simple as putting him into one of two categories, an idealist or a pragmatist. Going against all practical odds for a small chance for a lot of money risking any money at all could define an idealist. It would seem that in general most people would be more sensible then end up walking away with considerably less based on an irrational whim. Recalling other Deal or No Deal shows the pattern of looking past logic is constant. From many of the episodes I have seen, this happens which makes me think there could be more than idealists and pragmatists, since I imagine the majority of people couldn’t be that idealistic. Maybe the crowd cheering and the incessant excitement creates an ambience of anything is possible, which could possibly fuel this hope in an idealistic ending, which hardly ever happens. An idealist could be made in his or her surroundings. Even though I see the logic behind taking the banker’s reasonable offer, I might be in a different state of mind when being cheered on and watched by millions.
This man like many others on Deal or No Deal made a choice that can almost always be seen on this show, but none the less shocks me every time. There were 8 plays still remaining only one was over the offer the banker gave. He had less than a ten percent chance to end up with more money than the banker would offer. The most sense would have been to take the offer. Why he didn’t could be as simple as putting him into one of two categories, an idealist or a pragmatist. Going against all practical odds for a small chance for a lot of money risking any money at all could define an idealist. It would seem that in general most people would be more sensible then end up walking away with considerably less based on an irrational whim. Recalling other Deal or No Deal shows the pattern of looking past logic is constant. From many of the episodes I have seen, this happens which makes me think there could be more than idealists and pragmatists, since I imagine the majority of people couldn’t be that idealistic. Maybe the crowd cheering and the incessant excitement creates an ambience of anything is possible, which could possibly fuel this hope in an idealistic ending, which hardly ever happens. An idealist could be made in his or her surroundings. Even though I see the logic behind taking the banker’s reasonable offer, I might be in a different state of mind when being cheered on and watched by millions.
1 comment:
Good connection. I agree that people can often be persuaded to do irrational things. Also, like you said that there aren't just idealists and pragmatists, I think that it depends heavily on the persons intellect. Why someone would take such a small chance when they have a guarantee of making money is beyond me. Good find.
Post a Comment