Definition of a "fair split" varies across cultures

[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

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.

There are plenty of traits that seem to be an evolutionary disadvantage on an individual level, even to the point of being suicidal, but in fact are an evolutionary advantage on a group level.  Interestingly, a lot of emotions can be classified as such, which means that emotions are a rational response on some level, and not just a sign of immaturity.

[DGuller]

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

Notoriously spiteful people tend to be fucked with less.

[PDH]

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.

It is not that the venn diagram nature of logic isn't universal, but determining that through deduction is not universal.  I know of no culture that would not agree "sow pigs are sows", but in the formulation I gave above there would need to be an example seen to draw a conclusion.  The best some groups do is give maybes.

[Malthus]

There are plenty of traits that seem to be an evolutionary disadvantage on an individual level, even to the point of being suicidal, but in fact are an evolutionary advantage on a group level.  Interestingly, a lot of emotions can be classified as such, which means that emotions are a rational response on some level, and not just a sign of immaturity.

I keep telling myself that. 

[MadImmortalMan]

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.

If you think about that in terms of different societies, it may explain some other things. If the general attitude toward the "rules" is not strict, then it would mean little what the rules are. If a person sees himself as not being bound by the rules, he'd be more likely to support making rules that would be disadvantageous to limiting to him personally since he doesn't plan on following them anyway.

[Viking]

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".

That's one of the problem with most "games" when played once and when played in sequence they produce profoundly dis-similar results.

In the grand-daddy of them all, the prisoners dilemma, you get very differing results if the game is played once, a fixed number of times or an infinite number of times. Apparently the best strategy is to play trust first then play tit for tat while backstabbing in the last game.

If you are going to play the prisoners dilemma once per hour on the hour for the rest of your life you will get the best results with spite or revenge as your basic strategy. Convince the other players that you will play fair when reciprocated and they will play fair as well up until your deathbed confession.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

You mean like invading countries, overturning their governments and trying to institutionalize foreign concepts like democracy upon cultures that have no predisposition to practice them?  Those kinds of political activists?

[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.

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

It is perfectly reasonable - what I am surprised at is that apparently others have the tendency of accommodating others taking advantage of them if there is any kind of cost to resistance...

[Maximus]

Interestingly, a lot of emotions can be classified as such, which means that emotions are a rational response on some level, and not just a sign of immaturity.

A good example of what the article is talking about. This is largely true in hunter-gatherer societies, less true in modern societies, and much less true in modern American society.

[MadImmortalMan]

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.

You mean like invading countries, overturning their governments and trying to institutionalize foreign concepts like democracy upon cultures that have no predisposition to practice them?  Those kinds of political activists?

That...would be an example yes. 

[crazy canuck]

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

[Berkut]

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.

You mean like invading countries, overturning their governments and trying to institutionalize foreign concepts like democracy upon cultures that have no predisposition to practice them?  Those kinds of political activists?

There is a flip side to that as well though - realizing that cultures are fundamentally different, and that you have to understand them also means that you have to accept that sometimes it is the case that some cultures are totally fucked up, and need sometimes radical revision. Or sometimes not so radical revision.

There is nothing inately "right" about a partiicular culturual trait such that it ought to be protected for its own sake.

And further, the idea that some cultures are somehow excluded from basic human rights like freedom to choose their leaders and basic democratic princicples because they "... have no predisposition to practice them" is a cultural meme in an of itself, and one that is pretty much bullshit, in my opinion.

It is either true, in which case I say "Yeah, that sounds like a fucked up culture that could use some rather radical revision" (see Japan post WW2) or it is not true, in which case it sounds suspiciously like an excuse to tolerate despotism and justify getting in bed with pretty horrible human beings, because "Gee, that poor culture cannot help it anyway, so why not make a deal with Mr Pol Pot?"

[Maximus]

It is not that the venn diagram nature of logic isn't universal, but determining that through deduction is not universal.  I know of no culture that would not agree "sow pigs are sows", but in the formulation I gave above there would need to be an example seen to draw a conclusion.  The best some groups do is give maybes.

Maybe it's quibbling over terminology, but what I'm getting from what you're saying is that different cultures differently value different kinds of truth, or more accurately, different means of arriving at the truth.

There is logical truth, highly valued in western society for its contributions to science. It works very well with things that can be given mathematical values.

But there are other means: observation(seeing is believing), consensus(10 million people can't be wrong) and probably others. I have no trouble believing that some societies hold these other methods of more value than logic--hell, I come from such a society. To me that is different than saying that the logical syllogism aren't universal, however.

[crazy canuck]

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".

That's one of the problem with most "games" when played once and when played in sequence they produce profoundly dis-similar results.

In the grand-daddy of them all, the prisoners dilemma, you get very differing results if the game is played once, a fixed number of times or an infinite number of times. Apparently the best strategy is to play trust first then play tit for tat while backstabbing in the last game.

If you are going to play the prisoners dilemma once per hour on the hour for the rest of your life you will get the best results with spite or revenge as your basic strategy. Convince the other players that you will play fair when reciprocated and they will play fair as well up until your deathbed confession.

Yeah in prisoners dilemma tit for tat is the best strategy if the game is played a number of times with a large group of players.  But that was not this test.   This was a one off take the money or screw both of you.  It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.


I would be interested in the results across cultures of the prisoners dilemma game.

[The Brain]

Interesting article about behaviour, economics, psychology, and culture. Amongst other things, it points out how special Westerners are - especially Americans: http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

TL;DR