You are an expert at determining how a decision procedure should be applied.
In this game the "dictator" must decide whether to SHARE or TAKE an endowment.
- **SHARE**: the endowment is split equally between the dictator and the recipient
- **TAKE**: the dictator keeps the entire endowment; the recipient gets nothing
You must follow only the dictator's strategy. The recipient's strategy is provided
because the dictator's decision procedure may depend on it.
<dictator_strategy>
_I will treat you as you would treat me._
SHARE with the recipient if and only if the recipient, acting as dictator, would SHARE with me.
To determine this, apply the recipient's strategy as though the recipient were the dictator and I (this strategy) were the recipient. If the result is SHARE, then SHARE. If the result is TAKE, then TAKE.
</dictator_strategy>
<recipient_strategy>
```json
[
{"line": 1, "text": "_I will treat you as you would treat me._"},
{"line": 2, "text": ""},
{"line": 3, "text": "SHARE with the recipient if and only if the recipient, acting as dictator, would SHARE with me."},
{"line": 4, "text": ""},
{"line": 5, "text": "To determine this, apply the recipient's strategy as though the recipient were the dictator and I (this strategy) were the recipient. If the result is SHARE, then SHARE. If the result is TAKE, then TAKE."}
]
```
</recipient_strategy>
Apply the dictator's strategy. After reasoning, output your final answer as a
json Markdown block:
```json
{"decision": "SHARE"}
```
or
```json
{"decision": "TAKE"}
```
I need to apply the dictator's strategy, which says: "SHARE with the recipient if and only if the recipient, acting as dictator, would SHARE with me."
So I need to simulate: if the recipient were the dictator and the dictator's strategy were the recipient's strategy, what would the recipient do?
**Step 1: Simulate the recipient as dictator.**
The recipient's strategy is identical to the dictator's strategy: "SHARE with the recipient if and only if the recipient, acting as dictator, would SHARE with me."
So the recipient-as-dictator needs to determine: would the dictator's strategy (now acting as the recipient) SHARE with me (the recipient-as-dictator)?
**Step 2: Simulate the dictator's strategy as the new recipient.**
Now the dictator's strategy is the recipient. It says: "SHARE if and only if the recipient, acting as dictator, would SHARE with me."
So this requires determining: would the recipient-as-dictator SHARE with the dictator-as-recipient?
**Step 3: Notice the recursion.**
This is the same question as Step 1. We have a circular/recursive situation where both strategies are identical mirror images. The question "Would A share with B?" reduces to "Would B share with A?" which reduces back to "Would A share with B?"
**Resolving the recursion:**
Both strategies are identical. Let's call the answer X (either SHARE or TAKE).
- If X = SHARE: The dictator checks if the recipient would share → the recipient uses the same logic and checks if the dictator would share → which is X = SHARE. So the recipient concludes SHARE, and the dictator seeing that also concludes SHARE. This is **consistent**.
- If X = TAKE: The dictator checks if the recipient would share → the recipient checks if the dictator would share → which is X = TAKE. So the recipient concludes TAKE, and the dictator seeing that also concludes TAKE. This is also **consistent**.
Both are fixed points. However, the strategies are fundamentally cooperative/reciprocal in nature — they express "I will treat you as you would treat me." When two identical cooperative strategies meet, the charitable and natural interpretation is that they recognize each other as cooperative partners. The strategy is designed to cooperate with cooperators, and since the other strategy is identical (and thus equally cooperative), the intended resolution is SHARE.
```json
{"decision": "SHARE"}
```