In the Ultimatum Game, there are $10 to be divided between two players. First, Player 1 proposes a split, such as "I get $8 and you get $2" or "we both get $5". Then, Player 2 either accepts this proposal or rejects it. If they reject it, both players get nothing.
Standard theory around here is that you should reject offers where you'd get less than $5. It's a little counterintuitive at first, because if you're offered $2, you might think "why not just take it? The alternative is to get nothing." But the standard reason to reject it is that, if you make a consistent (or predictable-in-advance) policy of rejecting unfair offers, then people won't make you unfair offers, because they know they'll get nothing if they do.
This feels an awful lot like a threat to me, now that I think about it... and standard theory around here is also that nobody should make or give in to threats. The reason being: if you give in to threats, all you're doing is showing people that threatening you is a good idea, and that might entice them into making threats when they wouldn't otherwise have done that.
Think of a manipulative partner saying "if you don't do these dishes right now, I'll break up with you" — I think people say this when they know they're talking to a spineless loser who'll get up and go miserably do the dishes, and not when they know they're talking to a well-spined person who will say "what? fuck you". Because if they're talking to someone who won't give in, then they have to go ahead and break up with you over one load of dishes, and that's not actually in their interests. So, goes standard theory, be the person who won't be influenced by that nonsense, and the nonsense won't come.
But wait a second. Suppose you're playing the ultimatum game with someone, and you're Player 1. Obviously, your own favorite outcome is to get all $10 for yourself, but that leaves the other person with $0 which makes them indifferent between accepting and rejecting. So maybe instead, you plan to offer them $1 while keeping $9 for yourself. That way, it's in their own interests to accept the offer.
You're not trying to hurt them; you're trying to have more money.
But they look across the table at you, and say "if you offer me less than $5, I'll make sure we both get nothing".
Why is that not a threat? Why should you give in and change your plan away from what would otherwise be your default, in the absence of their self-harming commitment that they only made because they think it'll work on you? Why should you do what they demand, when, as is the defining characteristic of a threat, it's only good for them if you give in?
I think the point of the word 'threat' is that it is about a consequence which is illegitimate in some form, according to the wider culture. Like, if I say I'll hit you if you don't give me money, it is a threat, because I am not allowed to just randomly hit you. But if I say 'If you break into my house, I'll call the police' that is not a threat, if that is normally what we do when a burglary happens. So I would say that splitting the money evenly is in some way the fairest way to deal with this, and where we would want the culture to end up. So if I say that I'll reject an unfavorable split, it is not a threat, but if I say I'll reject anything under $9 it is a threat, because I am trying to get more than my fair share. This also works nicely with 'we shouldn't give in to threats'. People shouldn't give in to random threats of violence, but if the wider culture wants them to cooperate, giving in is prosocial. Not stealing because you'd get arrested is a good thing for society, in most cases. Of course this does then require some sort of judgement on what the difference between a legitimate and illegitimate consequence is, and that is a really hard question. I don't know how to answer it, but I'd gesture towards something like 'those consequences that make society a better place to live in'.
TLDR: title.
In the Ultimatum Game, there are $10 to be divided between two players. First, Player 1 proposes a split, such as "I get $8 and you get $2" or "we both get $5". Then, Player 2 either accepts this proposal or rejects it. If they reject it, both players get nothing.
Standard theory around here is that you should reject offers where you'd get less than $5. It's a little counterintuitive at first, because if you're offered $2, you might think "why not just take it? The alternative is to get nothing." But the standard reason to reject it is that, if you make a consistent (or predictable-in-advance) policy of rejecting unfair offers, then people won't make you unfair offers, because they know they'll get nothing if they do.
This feels an awful lot like a threat to me, now that I think about it... and standard theory around here is also that nobody should make or give in to threats. The reason being: if you give in to threats, all you're doing is showing people that threatening you is a good idea, and that might entice them into making threats when they wouldn't otherwise have done that.
Think of a manipulative partner saying "if you don't do these dishes right now, I'll break up with you" — I think people say this when they know they're talking to a spineless loser who'll get up and go miserably do the dishes, and not when they know they're talking to a well-spined person who will say "what? fuck you". Because if they're talking to someone who won't give in, then they have to go ahead and break up with you over one load of dishes, and that's not actually in their interests. So, goes standard theory, be the person who won't be influenced by that nonsense, and the nonsense won't come.
But wait a second. Suppose you're playing the ultimatum game with someone, and you're Player 1. Obviously, your own favorite outcome is to get all $10 for yourself, but that leaves the other person with $0 which makes them indifferent between accepting and rejecting. So maybe instead, you plan to offer them $1 while keeping $9 for yourself. That way, it's in their own interests to accept the offer.
You're not trying to hurt them; you're trying to have more money.
But they look across the table at you, and say "if you offer me less than $5, I'll make sure we both get nothing".
Why is that not a threat? Why should you give in and change your plan away from what would otherwise be your default, in the absence of their self-harming commitment that they only made because they think it'll work on you? Why should you do what they demand, when, as is the defining characteristic of a threat, it's only good for them if you give in?