Definition of a "fair split" varies across cultures

[Maximus]

I remember an psychological anthropology paper from a few years ago that basically showed the Western system of syllogistic logic is not universal.  Different cultures have experience basic logic that does not accept "if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C" type of reasoning, despite similar regions of the brain being activated.

All of Bob's friends wear hats.
Mike is one of Bob's friends.
Does Mike wear a hat?

That could not be answered in entire regions, the main way of responding was "I can't see Mike, I don't know."  Culture is quite a filter for our weak little brains.

I would be very interested in seeing a paper that showed that logical syllogisms are not universal, as opposed to showing that understanding or value of logical syllogisms is not universal. That may sound ethnocentric especially in light of this article, but differing behaviors across cultures is one thing, differing truth values is another. One of the main premises of logic is that it has a truth value independent of perception or understanding.

[Admiral Yi]

A friend of mine who studied Mandarin said it does not have a word for logic.

[Berkut]

Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with

Not at all baffling, if you think about it.

If the other person is not willing to play "fair" with me, then there is a value to denying him the reward for his not being fair. If that is a small difference, then perhaps it is not worth it - on the other hand, if the difference is large, then my reward (ie the enjoyment i get from denying the asshole his larger share) may very well be greater than the enjoyment I would get from receiving some pittance.

There is an expectation that people should all be "fair" with one another in our society, to some degree or another. And that cannot possibly work if there isn't a willingness to punish those who are not fair.

I am often very amazed at other cultures where casual disregard for the rule of law (for example) is the absolute norm, even in things as trivial as traffic rules. They will say all kinds of things about why they don't follow the basic rules, but at the end of the day, IMO, it simply comes down to a cultural reality where there simply isn't any cultural pressure that says "Yeah, you should let the guy to the right go first because that is the law, and the law is the agreed upon set of rules, and we recognize that if we all follow them in general, the individual loss in any particular interaction will be more than compensated in the overall greater efficiency of the system".

Traffic laws are the easy example of this, but of course it extends much further, and into the basic tolerance for honoring contracts, not screwing your employer even if you get the chance, etc., etc.

Not saying this is better, just that it is rationally consistent.

[Maximus]

A friend of mine who studied Mandarin said it does not have a word for logic.

But that falls under "understanding or value" it does not mean that logic does not work the same way in China.

[fhdz]

Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with

The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.

[Berkut]

Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with

The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.

And that was what made the article interesting - the difference between how an American and the native guys saw it was not a matter of evaluating the relative value of p=unishment vs taking the money, it is that they did not even consider the idea that the second participant was in a position to punish anyone to begin with...

[Admiral Yi]

But that falls under "understanding or value" it does not mean that logic does not work the same way in China.

Not sure I see the distinction about understanding.  Hard to apply logic if you don't understand it.

[crazy canuck]

Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with

The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.

Yeah, I think that is his point.  I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.

[garbon]

Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with

The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.

Yeah, I think that is his point.  I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.

I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.

[DGuller]

Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with

I see that in stock trading too. Lots of traders feel like they did badly on a trade if they get out of a trade with a small profit and then the stock keeps going up. It's like the rest of the gains are losses to them even though it's completely not true. Opportunity costs I suppose.

It actually is true.  A dollar not gained is a dollar lost.  Every good poker player understands this.  The only difference between costs and opportunity costs is the accounting treatment.

[Berkut]

Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with

The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.

Yeah, I think that is his point.  I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.

I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.

I don't even think it is a matter of spite.

[crazy canuck]

Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with

The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.

Yeah, I think that is his point.  I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.

I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.

That is the "spite" part I am talking about.  It is enlightening to know so many Americans have that tendancy.

[garbon]

Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with

The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.

Yeah, I think that is his point.  I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.

I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.

That is the "spite" part I am talking about.  It is enlightening to know so many Americans have that tendancy.

Well now you know. Don't fuck with us.

[Maximus]

I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.

My take on it is that when we do that we're not doing it for ourselves(at least not immediately) but for society. We have it ingrained that someone who acts unfairly is harmful to society(and potentially our future selves) and that that behavior should be discouraged.

[Malthus]

I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.

My take on it is that when we do that we're not doing it for ourselves(at least not immediately) but for society. We have it ingrained that someone who acts unfairly is harmful to society(and potentially our future selves) and that that behavior should be discouraged.

Yup.

Looked at as a single transaction, "spite" in the game makes no sense.

Looked at as a transaction in a social context, "spite" is a form of social discipline. Don't try to screw others, because if you do, you will be met with "spite".