Him | Me $1 | $99 $20 | $80 $40 | $60 $50 | $50 $60 | $40 $80 | $20 $99 | $1If I use this maxim, the person offering knows I do, and he acts rationally, he will keep $99 and I will make $1. On the other hand, if I use the maxim 'accept $50 or more only' the rewards would be:
Him | Me $1 | $99 $20 | $80 $40 | $60 $50 | $50 $0 | $0 $0 | $0 $0 | $0If I use this maxim, the person offering knows I do, and he acts rationally, he will keep $50 and I will make $50.
It turns out the Machiguenga — whose number system goes: one, two, three, many — are not alone in their thinking.Am I the only one who calls bullshit on this? I've heard this before about Africans, people from the South Pacific.... Can anyone point me toward actual research showing that these people don't count above three? I tried googling "machiguenga numbers" and didn't get anything useful.
I'm rather shocked that no-one in the behavioral sciences figured out that sociology, psychology and neurology are inextricably intertwined and mutable before now.What? What makes you think that? Just because of one article about one particular aspect was written you've assumed that no ones ever thought about it or researched it before? Sapir-Whorf was thought up in the 1960s (although proven incorrect, obviously people have been thinking about how different groups of people think differently for a long time)
If I use this maxim, the person offering knows I do, and he acts rationally, he will keep $50 and I will make $50.What if it was $100,000, and could only be split up in $10k blocks? I think most people would take the $10k. I wonder if one of the problems with studying this in poorer cultures is that they offered too much money. For someone who lives on $1/day an offer of $10 might be too good to turn down.
In other words, I know of two maxims; if I apply the first maxim against an informed rational actor I will get $1, if I apply the second maxim against an informed rational actor I will get $50. It seems rational, therefore, that I apply the second maxim.
When earthquakes devestate, when floods destroy, when famines afflict, when volcanoes engulf whole towns--it is those odd western nations who then send help, doctors, money, supplies to those "other" places.Clearly in some cases we are mortally insulting those people whom we "help" in such ways. We'd better study their cultures more thoroughly before we spend all that money and effort in counterproductive ways.
studies by Cameron and Hoffman et al. have found that the higher the stakes are the closer offers approach an even split, even in a 100 USD game played in Indonesia, where average 1995 per-capita income was 670 USD. Rejections are reportedly independent of the stakes at this level, with 30 USD offers being turned down in Indonesia, as in the United States, even though this equates to two week's wages in Indonesia.Interesting, because it disproves the 'non-westerners don't do this' view. But anyway that's doing the full test, not the half test. A half test would have a confidant actually choose the split, and always go lopsided, and see if people reject it. I think most people would still choose an even split. And the more money at stake the closer to even it would be (since you want the least risk possible)
In fact, I'd like to point out there is nothing specific about the number 50 in this analysis: How about a third maxim, where I only accept $99? If the other person knows this, then he must rationally offer me $99, right?But that would assume you had some way to communicate with them before hand. The 50% figure is a best guess based on simple fairness.
His side of the experiment makes perfect sense. He knows that he can ask for more and you'll get nothing if you say no.The way the game works, there's no negotiation. One person makes an offer and the other person gets to accept or reject. So by making an offer too low, you're actually taking a risk. Whereas making an even offer entails no risk.
He also knows that he can ask for more than half, and you still get nothing if you say no. Why is he settling for half?Again, no one gets to ask for anything. An offer is made, and it's either accepted or rejected.
You are given $100 and asked to share it with someone else. You can offer that person any amount and if he accepts the offer, you each get to keep your share. If he rejects your offer, you both walk away empty-handed.Nowhere in there am I seeing that the person knows I have $100, nor do they know that I'm required to share it. I can't imagine walking up to someone and saying "here's $10" and them telling me "no, I want more".
« Older Fortepan... | "Good news -- this is the poin... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:23 AM on August 29, 2010 [1 favorite]