Definition of a "fair split" varies across cultures

[Berkut]

haha. Understandable. But this really sounds like a case of not quite getting the game.

They may get the game, but that doesn't isolate it from the rest of their lives. What would prevent the person deciding the split from approaching the person who accepted it afterwards for some favour? After all, they not only gave them free money but they gave them more than they took for themselves. Surely it's only fair that the recipient returns the selfless act in an appropriate fashion.

Isn't one of the features of the game that you don't know who the other person is?

Ahhh, but you are forgetting that one of the things they are testing here is internalized "rules" of society that create standards of behavior that often go beyond the game.

Even if you understand the game, and know there cannot be repurcussions directly, there are still repurcussions based on your own internal sense of morality/ethics/ reasonableness.

Using the cultural stereotypes, the American may be more apt to "punish" the swindler, even if they know it cannot really amtter in the direct context of the game, because they feel it is the "right" thing to do.

In this particular case, someone may very well refuse a generous "gift" even if they know the other person cannot follow up on the presumed obligation, simply because it is ingrained in them that it is unethical to accept overly generous gifts from other - either because it will create an obligation on themselves that they may not wish to fulfill, or even that it could create a moral obligation on themselves that they cannot fulfill, perhaps even because they don't know who they would owe it to!

I am not saying that is the case, since I have no idea, but just trying to point out that these kinds of cultural meems aftern go much deeper than a simple risk/benefit analysis may suggest.

[CountDeMoney]

This is my favorite Languish thread in a long while.

Not nearly enough monkey pooh flinging.  Snooze.

[Josquius]

Ahhh, but you are forgetting that one of the things they are testing here is internalized "rules" of society that create standards of behavior that often go beyond the game.

Even if you understand the game, and know there cannot be repurcussions directly, there are still repurcussions based on your own internal sense of morality/ethics/ reasonableness.

Using the cultural stereotypes, the American may be more apt to "punish" the swindler, even if they know it cannot really amtter in the direct context of the game, because they feel it is the "right" thing to do.

In this particular case, someone may very well refuse a generous "gift" even if they know the other person cannot follow up on the presumed obligation, simply because it is ingrained in them that it is unethical to accept overly generous gifts from other - either because it will create an obligation on themselves that they may not wish to fulfill, or even that it could create a moral obligation on themselves that they cannot fulfill, perhaps even because they don't know who they would owe it to!

I am not saying that is the case, since I have no idea, but just trying to point out that these kinds of cultural meems aftern go much deeper than a simple risk/benefit analysis may suggest.

Could be.
But I think there they'll still be thinking "OK, so this western guy is gonna reveal who each person was later right? Or maybe I'll meet everyone taking part in the study and a girl will say she gave $x". Not quite getting the rules.

[Martim Silva]

Kinda blows away the thinking that some single way of doing things can be applied globally over all of humanity. Marketing people know this, and market products differently in different cultures. Regrettably, political activists will probably always cling to the fiction that their idea of how to do things can be successfully applied to every society in the same manner.

Unfortunately.

One excellent example has been happening in my country for over a decade now: Liberal thinkers (US educated or US influenced) are always trying to "liberalize" all markets (previously state-controlled), because they firmly believe that, if many private companies are present in a market, increased competition will lead to lower prices.

And so they have been liberalizing several sectors (gas, electricity, telecommunications, etc) like mad, allowing many companies to compete.

The end result? MASSIVE PRICE INCREASES. People now routinely pay 100-200% more than when the market was run by the State.

The reason? In Portugal, when several companies are present in the same market, it isn't the cheapest one that sells more; rather, two things happen:

1) People always think that the most expensive offer must be the best and go for it;

2) The cheaper companies look at the prices of the most expensive one and think "if they can get away with it, so can we".

So the result is that prices are levelled by the HIGHEST price, not by the lowest.

And yet our Liberal economists keep failing to grasp this and insist on liberalizing markets, only to be permanently baffled by the constant price increases.

It reminds me of something that happened over 8 years ago, during a meeting with our (then) CEO, who was foreign, and the (then) head of my division. The CEO was worried we weren't selling well, and our head of division just told him to "raise the prices by 60%". The CEO was horrified at the idea ('if our sales are low, how can they rise if we hike the prices by 60%?'), as it went against everything he had learned [he had been educated in the US; Yale or Harvard or something like that].

But we all pressured him, and disgustedly he acccepted.

The end result? Our sales went up 30%.

[Valmy]

Wow.  People in Portugal must be rich or something.  Even if I wanted to buy only the most expensive electricity produced by only the fanciest of coal plants necessity would dictate I go for the cheaper option.  I thought we were the ones who lived outside of our means.

[derspiess]

This is my favorite Languish thread in a long while.

Not nearly enough monkey pooh flinging.  Snooze.

Yeah.  Someone needs to drag Meri in & insult her.  That'll start the usual chain reaction.

[CountDeMoney]

Hey Meri, is that a hat you're wearing, or are you just happy to see us?

[Ed Anger]

Whore pills should be paid for by the private citizen.

[CountDeMoney]

And you have to supply your own Pez dispenser.  A Chewbacca one.

[Martim Silva]

Wow.  People in Portugal must be rich or something.  Even if I wanted to buy only the most expensive electricity produced by only the fanciest of coal plants necessity would dictate I go for the cheaper option.  I thought we were the ones who lived outside of our means.

Actually, that's usually a sad joke here. An e-mail runs around saying that 'the Portuguese complain about being poor, but you have to be rich, because you accept paying 300% more than Americans for electricity, internet, food, water and lots of other stuff".

The price limit is just "when people really, really, cannot afford it". Then you need to lower it a bit so that they can buy the most expensive things they can.

(foreign companies have also adopted this strategy, because coming here with the lowest prices means you'll lose clients, not gain them)

EDIT: just as an example, console video games are sold here for 70 euro each (about $91). A Blu-Ray movie costs 30 euro ($39).You know how little the average portuguese makes. Yet they sell (I buy my stuff at Amazon.uk to get prices 50-70% lower).

[jimmy olsen]

Talking about differing cultural values, I saw this over at Gene expression, and thought of this thread. There's some validity to this rant, but the author over generalizes.

What is the good life?
By Razib Khan | February 25, 2013 2:13 am

Now that I have a daughter I do reflect a bit more on what the purpose of my life is, because at some point I want to talk to her about the purpose of her life. There is a little bit of irony in this insofar as now she is a primary purpose of my life! But in any case, though Chris Rock's raison d'être speaks to me, additionally my job is also to make sure that my daughter doesn't become a C.P.A. Certain professions, such as dentistry or accountancy, are honorable. But there are enough people who want to enter those financially lucrative professions as it is. In a world of such absolute affluence we can afford the luxury of the life the mind. Aristotle's father was a physician, no doubt a good man. But his memory persists only because of the incandescent brilliance of his son, who ventured into wide intellectual waters.

Speaking of Aristotle, Aristotle Onassis is reputed to have said that "If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning." Point taken, and I think there's a great deal of truth in this. But let me rephrase it: if books didn't exist, all the time in the world would have no meaning. To many this sort of assertion would seem strange, but I suspect among my readership it is comprehensible. And by books I don't mean to imply paper and ink and binding, I mean the information encoded within those books.

With that out of the way, I thought I would share an email from a long time reader (though only very rarely a correspondent). I don't necessarily agree with everything stated here obviously, and I hope that the comments don't devolve in discussions of the nature of East Asian society. I didn't feel comfortable expurgating that aspect just because some might take objection though. Rather, it is to consider how one might find a place to flourish and be nurtured socially in their intellectual explorations.

I do not know how your off-line persona differs, if at all, but I'm assuming your on-line self is close to the truth. Obviously, life demands that we all be somewhat multifaceted in how we express ourselves in different situations. I have always had problems in dealing with people's irrational emotionalism over many issues. I learned quite early that although everyone seems capable of logic, they definitely do not have the same innate ability or even desire to be rational in their approach to life. Most people are this way, as I am sure you know. It is often frustrating dealing with "the mob", and the funny thing is I don't hold myself as being very special in any regard. I am simply highly curious and tend to be quite rational, I guess that is enough to be an oddity in the modern world.

I'm in my late 30′s, born in the Midwest, but I have lived in 4 different states, and several nations, which include Switzerland, Singapore, China, Japan, and Taiwan. I have visited many more. Over the years I found that most people, even those we would consider quite educated, who are quite academically accomplished are far from intellectuals. Most people simply apply their intellect to their job, after which they focus on practical concerns or entertainment. They lack innate curiosity about the world or a drive to follow-up on things that do strike their fancy.

My family is a good example, not wanting to get too much into my background, my parents died when I was young, and I grew up with my mother's family, who are quite blue collar in their sensibilities. They have never been able to understand why I would want to even visit Asia, let alone live outside the U.S. For them exotic is going to the Caribbean, and outrageous would be travelling to France. They have no interest in science at all. I suppose my generation is slowly breaking out of this mode, but despite having doctors, lawyers, and low level politicians in the family, most are far from intellectual in their pursuits. Outside my family, the most intellectually stimulating environment I have found was Washington D.C. I lived there for 5 years, during which time I was involved in a couple of organizations where I met some very interesting people, whom I still regard as fairly close friends. After leaving Washington D.C., I have mostly been surrounded by fairly educated business people, so not much intellectual depth.

This is especially true in East Asia, as the societies are so authoritarian, due to a Confucianist tradition, many people do not even know how to think for themselves about things that are not practical. It is not just the common complaint about the lack of self-initiative or creativity, that you might read on the internet, it is far deeper than that. I have met ethnic Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people (all Asian born) who have went to top universities, and might be seen as highly intelligent in the very narrow area of their occupation, but outside of this you might see them as retarded (in the classic sense). In Asia, but for Japan, there seems to be no love of learning outside of the practical purpose of money making, which is an obsession, especially among the ethnic Chinese. Hell, most people do not even read for enjoyment if the material is higher than a fashion magazine or manga. A Taiwanese woman once told me that education is so brutal and stressful for most, and then they grow and work 12 hours a day, after which no one wants to do anything but sleep, eat, and relax. A common joke in Taiwan is that people's favorite hobbies are "sleeping and eating", and like many quips, there is truth in it. I used to think this was a nouveau riche attitude, but honestly I think it is not a transient phase, it is deeply culture. East Asians are really just practical highly focused "grinders". I have met people who were different, but few. I used to be involved with a discussion group in Taiwan, and I started a sister group in Singapore, we discussed all sorts of topics from birth rates, to modern marriage trends, to religious issues, but those type of groups I found were highly unusual, and a quick scan of Meet-up, which is quite popular in Singapore can show you that most people are interested in business networking, meeting a sex partner, or self-improvement (usually how to make more money). The funny thing is, in Singapore, almost all these events are dominated by ethnic Indians. Indians are chatty, far more than the "Mongoloids". To be fair, there are groups for hiking, biking, and jogging, but they are usually lead by Western people with Asian tag-alongs.

In Asia people rarely give opinions in groups or even have strong opinions about many things, they simply look to be "told". Chinese say they are like "roaches" which is a positive expression, it means they can survive anything, and the tenacity of the people is awe inspiring at times. They can take all manners of abuse and drudgery from authority figures, while suffering in silence, which I believe is why the suicide rate is so much higher than the West. Since face is so important to people, most will not put themselves "on the line" as they never want to be seen as wrong, let alone challenging authority. Face is so critical because everyone is judging everyone all the time, there is little "privacy". The locus of moral control is generally "outside the person" because the societies are built on shame, not guilt. So people really fear being shamed, but if they think they won't get caught, I've seen people do pretty terrible things, with little remorse or self-criticism. If you ever think someone from these nations will apologize to you for something wrong they did, dont' hold your breath, the very act is a lose of face, so they will simply pretend it did not happen or top talking to you if you make an issue of it. I have seen this many times. Any criticism of a person or "the group" (which could also mean the nation/government) is seen as an attack by many, especially coming from a foreigner, and then the irrational "home team is always right" attitude kicks in, usually an illogical rant. Logical thinking is not fundamental at all, at least not for more abstract issues. Despite being "patriarchal societies" how the society functions reminds me of how junior high school girls operate. The whys and what fors are all quite complicated, but Asia is definitely not what most Americans think it is. I think if Western people really knew how fundamentally different the society is in a place like China, they would be terrified for the future, it is shocking, and takes a major adjustment for those of us who do not wish to live in an ex-pat bubble while living abroad.

Anyway, I added in the Asian part because I know you have some interest in the Far East, but my real question to you is how do you find the like-minded, off-line? I understand you live in the Pacific Northwest, are things better there or have you just found a niche. I assume blogging is not your only intellectual outlet, so are most of the people you speak with about various issues on-line? I need to figure out something, as I'm heading back to "money is life" land. Sports fans have their bars, dancers have night clubs, where do we go?

So, after all that, what's my advice? Offline I have found the Less Wrong and BIL communities to be invigorating. The primary issue that I have is that I tend not to have an "off" switch when I'm intellectua;ly engaged. I can talk about sports and other "small talk" fare on "autopilot," but when I engage cognitively I tend to get bored by a lot of discussion. The people I've met through Less Wrong and other such communities also tend not to have a genuine "off" mode, and intellectual discussion isn't about signalling or showing how smart you are, it's about getting to the heart of things. And that's hard to find. The reality is that most smart people enjoy decompressing in the evening, having a good meal and a rich beer. But the corollary is that conversation also seems to become rather anodyne, banal, and mind numbing. In contrast, a minority of us just have a difficult time genuinely unwinding, because we're always conscious of the fact that death is coming closer and closer, and we're stilled mired in ignorance.

[mongers]

I don't know there's some serious racist bullshit in that, my anecdotal 'evidence', the limited number of Japanese I've meet have all been just as intellectually curious as anyone I've met, but with the advantage of having had on average a slightly more rigorous education, at least as compared to some of my fellow Brits and I. 

edit:
On second thoughts, that guys sounds like such a asocial tool, you should invite him onto languish, he'd fit here like a glove.   

[Jacob]

Yeah pretty much, mongers.

[jimmy olsen]

I don't know there's some serious racist bullshit in that, my anecdotal 'evidence', the limited number of Japanese I've meet have all been just as intellectually curious as anyone I've met, but with the advantage of having had on average a slightly more rigorous education, at least as compared to some of my fellow Brits and I. 

edit:
On second thoughts, that guys sounds like such a asocial tool, you should invite him onto languish, he'd fit here like a glove.   

Well obviousy I don't agree with the racist language he uses, a lot of what he talks about is true, though it's impossed on the people by the culture, not biology. There is a profound lack of intellectual curiousity among many people here. There is an extreme unwillingness to go against authority even when it's the course laid out is certain disaster. The politics of Face are a serious obstacle to having meaningful relationships with westerners.

[Jacob]