This is precisely how contracting shops work in the IT industry in the US. They keep the bulk of the money and pay the contractor just enough that he does not walk away from the deal.
The bit about offering more than 60% in gift-giving cultures and having the other player still reject them is surprising. What would explain that?
I don't get that.
If someone offered me a dollar out of his million, I'd accept it and be very grateful.
Why? Do you really consider it worth $100 to you just to prevent someone else from getting $9900, or do you just value $100 so little that you are willing to round it down to $0?
I can imagine real-world scenarios in which I might spend $100 worth of my time to try to address a problem, especially if I think that problem might affect others. (Scenarios involving an actual $100 seem even less likely, but plausible for a sufficiently egregious wrong.)
However, as a game, I'd call it free money no matter the amount; neither player did anything in particular to earn the money other than taking their time to play the game, and I don't see it as even slightly unfair of the first player to offer less money to the second, so I don't see any value in "punishing" the first player. The first player happened to get the better opportunity, and the second player gets to choose between having something or having nothing. In the game version, I'd place zero value on how much the first player gets.
Now, if I thought I could bluff the first player via advance communication into believing that I'd reject the offer if less than a certain amount, I'd certainly do it; however, if they called the bluff, I'll take what I can get.
Not the original commenter. But yes to both.
Look up multi-round games. Strategies fit for single-round games don't work in multi-round ones. Many of our strategies and heuristics are meant for multiround games, which is what most life interactions are.
By overanalyzing the experiment and treating it "just" as a experiment, imho, you are actually defeating the point of the experiment. ymmv, just my 2 cents and other disclaimers.
Let's say I tell you I have an idea for a company. It's a really cool idea and if we realize it we will make boatloads of money. I need your help to realize it. If you agree, you will get 20% of the company. If you don't, we won't realize it and neither of us will make any money.
Do you accept? If not, why not?
Would your answer be the same if I said I'd keep 9,999,999.99 and gave you only a penny. Would the value of punishing me be so low that now you'd consider to do so, or is it still free money and the absolute value doesn't affect you personally?
Over here in the good-ol UK I set my rate (which the customer knows about) and my agent tries to get as much on top as they can, but AFAICT (and I have relatives who are agents) the split is usually around 80-20. Which is still a lot of cash just for fixing me up with work...
I get the sense they tested the game with (for the local economy) large amounts of money in small towns, where participants probably already knew each other.
That's a very different scenario than most American iterations I've known of the game, with college students who probably don't know each other playing for relatively small amounts of money.
Nickle-and-diming your random classmate out of 10 cents is very different from taking a week's pay that could have gone to your neighbor.
There was also another party in the game whose identity was known well enough: word quickly spread of the young, square-jawed visitor from America giving away money
You're saying the family would never talk about this strange newcomer and his odd games and what he got me to do?
For the moment.
The situation in Europe is very interesting. There is a strong atheist movement, yet catholics seem to be on a comeback lately, and the mostly muslim immigrant population growing too - and at an even faster pace.
If religion says "go forth and populate the earth", and if atheist have less than 2.1 children, how long until they get outnumber and forced to chance their allegiance by the religous - at gunpoint if necessary? [nobody expects the spanish inquisition :-)]
So I would not base any conclusion on a punctual observation when you have partial derivative pointing to different conclusion in a longer timeframe.
Counter example : if large-scale societies survive fine without religion, how come there are so few of them ? Why do they have a tendency disappear in history, and be replaced by religious societies?
Also, the method of the prisoner game is questionable. The article says the amount was not insubstantial - around several days of work, but does not explain how it was chosen or how it was tested.
I would be very interested to know about the price elasticity of the acceptance rate and the price elascticity of the percentage offered.
I mean, do people in this group have a constant acceptance (fully inelastic - they always accept) or can you get to a point where they refuse because they think it's unfair?
Here's a quick example - go to any fast food join, eat normally, then when you have to leave, prepare the exact amount of cash in one side, and the tip in the other side of the table, and say to server the food was not to your taste, therefore you are leaving only a one cent tip (or a dime)
See if they take the free money, or if they feel so insulted that they refuse. Rince and repeat until you figure the amount they will accept without feeling insulted.
So I really wonder if there could be a cash amount where the remote people from this tribe would react just the same as all of us - which would just point to a calibration problem.
Obviously this has not hurt their population.
When it will be removed (it will have to), I wonder which group will take the most advantage of it and grow faster - the "non religious by western standard" or the various ethnic groups - say in the XianJiang.
Also, the fact that an authoritarian communist country where atheism is promoted still couldn't remove the religious allegiances is interesting. The former USSR tried the same - and failed.
Well, that escalated quickly.
So you make pretty invalid assumptions here, that we reproduce asexually into identical beings, and more than that, even including our believes. So religious parents have religious children, atheist parents have atheist children. That assumption is totally false.
I had personal contact with atheist being made in religious schools as they reacted strongly, and when others tried to force them to believe, they will find a way to prevail.
My uncle is a teacher and one of the girls in class asked him at the end of the class about God,she was curious as her parents, specially her mother, forbid this girl to know about religion. My uncle answered the question and days later had this furious mother trying her best to fire the teacher. Guess what the girl will do when grows up?
My neighbors are highly atheist, their children decided to baptize and go to church on their own. They respect their children decision.
Bad assumptions, bad conclusions.
But all things equal, is a religious couple more likely to have religious children, or atheist children? Is it more than half the time ? If it is, that's enough to make assumptions, even if counter example exist.
"when others tried to force them to believe, they will find a way to prevail"
Not so. I'm quite interested by the experience of atheists in north africa - how they organize and such. In an oppressive society, atheist have to hide - they don't prevail. Religions in general have a problem with atheism, as mentioned in the article about religion from the same author that was separately posted.
I'm not taking sides here- I'm just trying to figure out the dynamic.
It seems to me that while religions can be self perpetrating, atheism is not, and in the long run, it always ends up replaced by a religion.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5282707
one of Norenzayan's articles for a general readership about the issue of influence of religion on societies. I invite you to join the discussion there too.
Does the relative dollar amount vs the absolute dollar amount affect the ultimatum game?
How does differing income levels affect the results.
It does show the limitations of scientific study and how the studies themselves can be generalized or not having controlled and explored many possibilities that indeed may be factors.
Probably. But it was the first thing that sprang to my mind while reading the article. In an article titled "We Aren't The World" i would have expected a bit more caution.
Large amounts of cash = take whatever is offered.
Repeat experiment with a billion dollars. I offer you say 50 million, leaving 950 million to myself. Your move. You honestly going to reject 50 million?
It's actually quite rational that they took the money. Now, what would actually be interesting is that if they rejected the large amounts of cash.
I'd probably offer you a lot less if it were real - say 10-15 million.
> Among the Machiguenga, word quickly spread of the young, square-jawed visitor from America giving away money. The stakes Henrich used in the game with the Machiguenga were not insubstantial—roughly equivalent to the few days’ wages they sometimes earned from episodic work with logging or oil companies. So Henrich had no problem finding volunteers. What he had great difficulty with, however, was explaining the rules, as the game struck the Machiguenga as deeply odd.
EDIT
$100 isn't necessarily a few days wages for those who are working in a well paying full time position but for a college student that could mean a few days of going out.
Imagine yourself playing the game but with $1,000 (or more) on offer. Would you refuse $300 to punish your partner for keeping $700? Now change the amount to $10. Would you refuse $3 to punish your partner for keeping $7? Now switch it around: how much of the money, $1,000 and $10 offers, would you give to your partner?
But I haven't read the study, so I could be wrong.
I didn't find the word "anthropomorphize" in the other document; and the section I found in the original document didn't seem to go into what was said in the associated article. It's a rather long article, and I'll need to read it when I get home; however, the above section doesn't connect with me.
What does "anthropomorphize" mean in this context? I understand the term to mean "to give perceptually human characteristics to". There are only two routes I can follow with this:
1) they mean a human thinking that a smiling animal is a happy animal. And that animals laugh, and grin; and have all the same facial expressions as humans, like one would see in Disney movies.
2) they're suggesting that people in the United States believe that animals continue to have emotions that they can express and other sentient thought, have a sense of desire for certain outcomes to be had, and for genuine fear and happiness.
The second possibility isn't something that only people from the US do, at all. Long before the United States was the apparent urban environment with lost connection with nature (alluded to in the article in some places), Native Americans ascribed many emotions and intentions and ideas to the animals around them, even calling coyotes tricksters; and in Biblical times, calling someone a "fox" had a particular meaning.
In short, where is this article getting the idea that humans don't anthropomorphize animals at all stages of life? That word is VERY confusing to me in this sentence; and to claim that they're using a very limited definition of anthropomorphize, where it's just human facial expressions is to be unfair to the word itself.
The claim seems to be, more or less, that western urban kids interpret animals by projection or analogization of human traits rather than forming categories for the animals, more than kids in (some) other societies do. I have no idea how true that is myself (have not read anything on the subject beyond this article).
From what I gathered, the difference is that, urban kids (why is it urban kids?) relate to animals by relating them to humans; whereas elsewhere, animals are related to other animals.
To quote the original article, "inferences are asymmetric, with inferences from human properties to mammals emerging as stronger than inference from mammals to humans, and (3) children’s inferences violate their own similarity judgments by, for example, providing stronger inference from humans to bugs than from bugs to bees (Carey 1985;1995)." emphasis mine.
If this is what the submitted link is talking about, I don't believe that's anthropomorphism.
This conclusion comes a decade or more too late, I suppose, to affect U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for the better. After doing my undergradate work in Near Eastern Culture (or, rather, about 3 credits in) it became apparent that the 'Western ideal' of justice does not translate whole-sale; that certain adaptations are necesssary to improve the human rights situation, as is a great deal of 'soul searching' to determine precisely what would constitute 'improvement.'
I don't want to politicize the discussion too much, but I feel compelled to ask: do you really believe Bush et al. would actually care even if they had access to this research's findings?
I do believe they would. It is in the best interest of the United States to form stable, like-minded governments abroad. If this cannot be reasonably accomplished because of cultural differences, it would be beneficial to at least marginally adapt the strategy to achieve something close to it. Judging from the US installation of the Shah in Iran, the US is not above installing dictators to enrich its own interests.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Weird_People_BBS_fina...
"In the tropical forests of New Guinea the Etoro believe that for a boy to achieve manhood he must ingest the semen of his elders. This is accomplished through ritualized rites of passage that require young male initiates to fellate a senior member. In contrast, the nearby Kaluli maintain that male initiation is only properly done by ritually delivering the semen through the initiate’s anus, not his mouth. The Etoro revile these Kaluli practices, finding them disgusting."
Or, as someone years ago suggested, "Psychology is the study of the psychology of Psychology undergraduates."
Extrapolated that means that almost all of our current scientific beliefs will be "proven" false or at least considered marred by misunderstanding or lack of data at some point in the future.
Humans can not understand everything, and they never will.
But, there is not a single fact that could not be disproved by more evidence. Even "the Earth is round" could be proven to be wrong and we consider it part amorphous-hyperconical-hypertubular in the future, or perhaps we prove scientifically that we live in a simulation/a game and the universe, shapes, Earth, etc. is a simple allusion, comparable to the blocky pixel graphics in old Atari 2600 games.
Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
While it is certainly possible that we understand one or more eternal truths that span all that exists in every dimension and every universe, considering the age, maturity, and abilities of the human race, it is extremely doubtful that we have made much progress or that we ever will. Science is great when approached from the standpoint of wonder and discovery, but it is terrible when it comes to "truth". Don't believe me? There is a whole religion devoted to the belief system that many are infected or affected by aliens (Scientology); many accept that this faith is based on a science fiction novel a.k.a. fiction, but many believe it is true. In the same way, many are convinced that science has elucidated truths, even though we don't know that it has or ever will. Yet, you accept science as truth in part. That is an irrational belief because the only way to accept it as rational is to have faith that it is rational. Rationalism is nothing without faith, but faith exists without rationalism.
it is said for example that the dutch are more price conscious and the french more relations/support minded ...
E.g. > Recent research has shown that people in “tight” cultures, those with strong norms and low tolerance for deviant behavior (think India, Malaysia, and Pakistan), develop higher impulse control and more self-monitoring abilities than those from other places.
I remember living in India as a teenager and being confused by how rarely if ever kids in my school would display emotion on the spot when something happened. The response would come up later and it was as immature as teenagers everywhere but on the spot responses were polite.
His book "Why Humans Cooperate" is worth a trip to the library, too. It combines some formal models, experiments, and an interesting study on the Chaldean community in Detroit (a less-WEIRD ethnic group in the middle of our WEIRD society).
The implications of this research are even more radical (and controversial) than the article suggests. The idea that culture shapes the way we think and act is interesting enough, but then the big question becomes "where does culture come from?"
Henrich (and others[1]) suggest that culture evolves through Darwinian processes of transmission and replication, and that biological and cultural evolution are coupled. Social Darwinism and sociobiology gave this idea a bad reputation, and the idea that our social norms have evolved from kin selection all the way up to impersonal market exchange is still a hard sell for economists and anthropologists alike. But it's a fascinating idea, and it's completely changed the way I think about economic behavior and human cooperation.
[1] "Not By Genes Alone" by Boyd and Richerson is another great book on this subject: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo361...
I can tell this is true from personal experience. I spent my early childhood (before starting school at 6) mostly in the countryside, interacting a lot with animals and nature and when I used to interact with other children who've spent all their life so far in the urban environment I experienced a lot the "are they retard or what?!" feeling about their anthropomorphizing interactions with animals, dolls and even plastic toys, that I distinctively remember even now. I imagine that they probably felt the corollary about my competitive-social skills because, as I child, I was never good at "playing for winning" and using winning at a game to establish a higher social status.
I say squabble because I don't mean fight or be offended. I might argue for the fun of the argument, not the actual value of the money. I wouldn't accept the 10 cents, knowing that we both then got nothing because $1 doesn't mean that much to me.
More on this from an English anthropologist in Debt: The First 5000 Years, a history of money and currency that is exceedingly timely given the current emergence of Bitcoin and Ripple, and the strange survival of the Swiss WIR.
