Definition of a "fair split" varies across cultures

[CountDeMoney]

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?"

An excellent response, Jeff. 

But I was really taking a shot at MiM's obvious categorization of those awfully naive hippy Peace Corps types that try to "change the world" while at the same time ignoring the gravitas-leaden leaders that try to do the same thing with secular Sunni tribal strongmen.   

[DGuller]

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 are screw both of you.  It suprsides me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.

Yes, it's an emotional response to spite the other person.  However, the culture of not screwing the other guy is built on such emotional responses.  In a way, people who act perfectly rationally on an individual level and take whatever is given to them are freeloading on the backs of emotional people spiting the assholes.

[fhdz]

It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.

Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."

[Habbaku]

It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.

Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."

But, of course, an interesting bit of that is just how much money is being gained/lost.  Would be interesting to find out the threshold for which the average person is willing to resort to spite in such a situation--I imagine once the dollar value gets into the thousands, one's fairness scruples start to flex a bit.

[fhdz]

It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.

Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."

But, of course, an interesting bit of that is just how much money is being gained/lost.  Would be interesting to find out the threshold for which the average person is willing to resort to spite in such a situation--I imagine once the dollar value gets into the thousands, one's fairness scruples start to flex a bit.

I am sure that in all cases, there's a - usually unconscious - cost/benefit analysis which goes on during the decision making process.

[Berkut]

It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.

Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."

I would take it even a step further.

Acquiescing to getting screwed by the first participant is actively immoral in a society that presumes that people ought to act basically fair to one another.

Essentially, when Person B allows Person A to screw them, they are not avoiding being spiteful, they are putting their own interests above that of society at large - they are acting selfishly by deciding that they will allow the even more immoral person to "bribe" them into going along with their own immoral behavior.

The initiator of the transaction lives in a society where the presumption is that people ought to treat one another in a fair manner. If they do not do so, they are acting counter to the dictates of their society.

So now we are to the recipient of the transaction. If they accept the crappy deal because to NOT do so would mean they get nothing, they are basically saying they can be bought off by the corrupt initiator. What he is doing is wrong under the norms of the society, but to refuse to allow him to take advantage would cost me, therefore I will allow him his corruption. That is not a moral stance either, but rather an actively immoral one.

Again, this is all in the context of a society that expects that the initial offer be "fair".

[fhdz]

Right, it's something of an "I'm not going to be your enabler" motivation.

[Berkut]

What is interesting about all this is how easy it is to case the actions of person B as being immoral either way, as a response to the crappy offer.

If he refuses the offer, he is being spiteful. If he accepts the offer, he is being complicit and selfish.

It is an interesting illustration of the overall quandary of how to respond to an actively corrupt person - it is much easier if person A just makes a "fair" offer to begin with!

And of course, there is the obvious extension of the same issue at the nation level - how do you deal with actively aggressive nations willing to violate the basic tenets of international discourse, even to the extent of war? War is never an acceptable alternative to resolving disagreements - unless the other person starts it...which does seem a bit like bullshit.

Interestingly enough, we can always fall back on the practical example of Western nations, and see that it actually does work - you really can create a system where the use of violence/war is simply not an acceptable alternative. But it only works when everyone agrees to it.

[MadImmortalMan]

I wonder if the American aversion to haggling prices is related.

[fhdz]

I wonder if the American aversion to haggling prices is related.

That's an excellent point; I bet it is.

"If you were going to come down to this price anyway, why didn't you just fucking make that offer in the first place? I'm going to go buy a car somewhere else."

[Razgovory]

Yeah, culture can be a hell of a thing.  There are times when people of a certain culture will suffer from a sort of physical or mental illness that is unique that culture.  It's called a culture bound syndrome.  This also the reason why IQ tests are useless.

[Valmy]

This also the reason why IQ tests are useless.

Wouldn't they be useful if the subjects are all in basically the same culture?  Anyway they are not perfect but a lack of perfection is not the same as uselessness.

[Razgovory]

This also the reason why IQ tests are useless.

Wouldn't they be useful if the subjects are all in basically the same culture?  Anyway they are not perfect but a lack of perfection is not the same as uselessness.

It's not really clear what the hell they are testing then.  If it's suppose to test intelligence in suburban American from the North East but fails to do that for every other person, is it really measuring intelligence at all?

[DGuller]

This also the reason why IQ tests are useless.

Wouldn't they be useful if the subjects are all in basically the same culture?  Anyway they are not perfect but a lack of perfection is not the same as uselessness.

Yeah, one of my biggest problems with liberals is their selective absolutism.  They're great fans of subtlety, but when conclusions get uncomfortable, they demand algebraic precision from statistics.

[Valmy]

It's not really clear what the hell they are testing then.  If it's suppose to test intelligence in suburban American from the North East but fails to do that for every other person, is it really measuring intelligence at all?

They are testing the subject's ability to perform the tasks on the IQ test relative to other subjects.  I don't think anybody is claiming they are the prophet of testing and their IQ test is 100% perfect.  If that is the litmus than you cannot test anything.

But even in your case it is useful to measuring the comparative IQs, at least as measured by the test, of northeast suburban Americans.  I was not aware my culture was so radically different than people in New Hampshire though.