What this shows is that ubiquitously, folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest. Some other factor intervenes. What that is, is open to further research. — Banno

No, it shows that sometimes “ folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest.”
Some other factor CAN intervene.
You opened your post showing the above conclusion to be false.
That is all.

maximising their self-interest. — Banno

Depends what that really means. Does self-interest have to incorporate simply monetary gain? Keeping one's dignity can be in one's self-interest, perhaps. Viewing something as unfair and so proving that point can be in one's self-interest. But if it is financial self-interest, then I guess if those studies are correct to an statistical degree, it is true to some degree, still thus to be determined by more findings.

Hey, if a guy has the power to give me something fair, I have a buck in my pocket. I don't need to benefit him.

I think that's pretty much it. "Oh, I see what I'm worth to you. Guess what I can do..."

Now, up the ante to something on the range of a years worth salary equaling 10 percent of what you can give, I bet you'd see different outcomes.

What this shows is that ubiquitously, folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest. Some other factor intervenes. — Banno

You need to recognize a person's attention to probability, odds. If the person offers $0 they know the odds of acceptance are zero or close to it. As the amount offered increases, so do the odds of acceptance. The person offering 50% of the money is making a pretty safe bet, and will still reward one's own self-interest. Therefore you cannot conclude that the person offering 50% is not "rationally" trying to maximize their own self-interest, while the person offering 10% is. Otherwise you'd have to say that buying lottery tickets is "rational". In other words, being rational is respecting the odds.

So I've ten dollars. To keep the money, I must divide it with you. I could give you a dollar and keep nine, and we would both be better off - you get a dollar that you would otherwise not receive, I get nine dollars. — Banno

You got free money, yes? You didn't earn it, but in order to keep it, you have to share it.
By offering a paltry share, you show yourself to be an avaricious and ungracious beneficiary.
The persons - including myself - who reject such an offer are showing you that uncivic-minded individuals like yourself are not welcome in our community; a dollar will not buy you acceptance.

You got free money, yes? You didn't earn it, but in order to keep it, you have to share it.
By offering a paltry share, you show yourself to be an avaricious and ungracious beneficiary.
The persons - including myself - who reject such an offer are showing you that uncivic-minded individuals like yourself are not welcome in our community; a dollar will not buy you acceptance. — Vera Mont

My sense of fairness is worth more that $1 or even $10. If it were $10,000, that would be a different thing. On the other hand, telling someone to go fry ice when he tries to stiff me for thousands might be worth it.

Depends what that really means. Does self-interest have to incorporate simply monetary gain? Keeping one's dignity can be in one's self-interest, perhaps. Viewing something as unfair and so proving that point can be in one's self-interest. — schopenhauer1

I agree. Also, for most of us, $10 is no big loss. Screwing someone who's trying to screw us is worth lots more.

How large a coin would it take for you to squat down and pluck it from the ground?

A nickle for me, a penny for my wife.

But divers and varied experiments have shown that, irrationally, this will result in your rejecting my offer, and us both receiving nothing. Offers of less than $2 (20%) are rejected. Most offers are around 40-50%.

Folk prefer to receive nothing rather than an amount considered too small.

What this shows is that ubiquitously, folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest. Some other factor intervenes. — Banno

You're not seeing this right. I am with the person rejecting the offer. I would reject it, too.

"Self-interest" has a price tag, as in, people wouldn't do just about anything just to get "something". Because you're using me to gain an amount much higher than mine, then, I see that as unfair and I wouldn't agree to it, even if I'm "gaining" something out of it, too. The key is, how much am I helping you compared to what I'm getting.

You've forgotten capitalism already.

How large a coin would it take for you to squat down and pluck it from the ground? — jgill

That depends on whether you believe in luck.

And they lived happily ever after ...

My sense of fairness is worth more that $1 or even $10. If it were $10,000, that would be a different thing. On the other hand, telling someone to go fry ice when he tries to stiff me for thousands might be worth it. — T Clark

That's right, monetary value systems are based in equity, fairness. If someone else gets nine to my one, it is in my "self-interest" to reject the entire system, putting us each at zero.

Sorry @T Clark that reply was meant for

An anecdote of the phenomena: I remember a contract negotiation where part of the bargaining unit cared more about the difference in pay between themselves and another group than what they would earn overall. I don't remember the numbers, but while the new pay schedule gave them a larger raise, they were more concerned with the pecking order than the raise they got.

"Which Rationality?" indeed.

Social organizations are not based on any 'bottom line', because there is no final result, only steps in a series of events and relationships.
That raise only lasts until the next cycle of inflation. If one group has an advantage over another, it tends to capitalize on the advantage, consolidate and increase its dominance. (See remuneration package of CEO's) Whether we know this consciously or intuit it, we tend to resist inequity when given a choice.

What this shows is that ubiquitously, folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest. Some other factor intervenes. What that is, is open to further research. — Banno

Need would be a factor, I would think. In other words, the extent to which the money is needed And need would have to be taken into account in determining what constitutes rational "self-interest."

Need would be a factor, I would think. — Ciceronianus

The experiment has been done many times, in a wide variety of societies. One experiment in Indonesia used the equivalent of two weeks wages, not an insignificant amount, and found much the same result.

Hey, if a guy has the power to give me something fair, I have a buck in my pocket. I don't need to benefit him. — Moliere

So you adopt the attitude of Homo Economicus? Yes, that's what games theory says we should do. But few of us actually act in this way. Offers of less then 20% are routinely rejected, despite being a win-win.

Curiously, several replies here have latched on to an explanation, with no reference to the empirical or games-theoretical research. A poor outcome.

Science Direct has a broad summation of some relevant research at https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/ultimatum-game . I found the MRI data interesting, even though all it essentially says that fairness, and punishing perceived unfairness, feels good.

Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous Ultimatum Game suggests that there is a heuristic response at work here, applying a stochastic games theoretical strategy; that fairness is a response to uncertainty.

What I'm interested in is that the game shows that we intuitively reject the correct games-theoretical response, which is to accept any offer. Compare that with the recent discussions here of Moore's arguments that we intuit the good.

Is our intuition of the good the manifestation of an evolved strategy? Is what feels fair is a result of natural selection towards an appropriate stochastic games theoretical strategy?

And if it is, does that matter?

So you adopt the attitude of Homo Economicus? Yes, that's what games theory says we should do. But few of us actually act in this way. Offers of less then 20% are routinely rejected, despite being a win-win. — Banno

Only in matters of money. Though I acknowledge that it was a training, and not a natural inclination. But I'll note that even in adopting that attitude I was attempting to say I agree that I'd tell the other guy to eat it, just to be clear. My thought was if I have what is being offered I'm in a position that I don't have to say yes. So, in fact, I have a good bargaining position compared to the other guy. The other guy can only make an offer, I'm the one who gets to say yes or no. That means the outcome depends upon my wishes, and not theirs.

It's a trained way of thinking, I'll admit.

What I'm interested in is that the game shows that we intuitively reject the correct games-theoretical response, which is to accept any offer. Compare that with the recent discussions here of Moore's arguments that we intuit the good. — Banno

We're on the same page with the first sentence, then. I agree that's interesting, even with upping the ante.

I only feel comfortable saying maybe on the second sentence?

Is our intuition of the good the manifestation of an evolved strategy? Is what feels fair is a result of natural selection towards an appropriate stochastic games theoretical strategy? — Banno

I tend to believe that the social environment is where we can find causal explanations for what we feel in regards to ethical intuition.

So, in a very broad sense of natural selection, I would say yes -- but I'd hasten to add that this is an application of the notion (because nothing has been specified) of natural selection in a new domain, namely, culturally -- perhaps even anthropologically.

And if it is, does that matter? — Banno

Heh, well, I'd say it doesn't in an ethical sense. We are, for better or worse, condemned to be free. I think Sartre got that right.

But as soon as we care about ethics, then it clearly matters because you have to know where you are to get to where you want to be.

Only in matters of money. — Moliere

The game has been played with pie.

Heh, well, I'd say it doesn't in an ethical sense. We are, for better or worse, condemned to be free. — Moliere

There's the joke. Ought we do what feels right and reject the unfair offer, or ought we follow the games-theoretical approach, and accept any offer? The Evolution of fairness article appears to offer a way to resolve this, if our intuition is actually the application of a stochastic strategy. But then in applying our intuition we are ipso facto applying a rule, and acting rationally.

So ought we apply the rule?

I think Sartre got that right.

No Exit.

No Exit. — Banno

Yeh, tho is hell other people really?

It's a temptation to say for me, but... naw, not really.

Well, what we have in the literature, and in the other replies above, are attempts to render the action compliant with a rational explanation. But of course any response can be explained as a compliance with some rule...

I recall Warren Buffet remarking on something similar:

“I always look at IQ and talent as representing horsepower of the motor, but then in terms of the output, the efficiency with which the motor works, depends on rationality. That’s because a lot of people start out with 400- horsepower motors and get a hundred horsepower output. It’s way better to have a 200 horsepower motor and get it all into output. So why do smart people do things that interfere with getting the output they’re entitled to? It gets into the habits, and character and temperament, and it really gets into behaving in a rational manner. Not getting in your own way.”

So why do smart people do things that interfere with getting the output they’re entitled to? — Ruminant

This settles it.

So why do smart people do things that interfere with getting the output they’re entitled to? — Ruminant

Wait a minute! The output who is entitled to? And what exactly is the 'output'? Productivity in the workplace? Monetary success? Social advancement? Winning at games?
Is 'output' a means to some end or an end in itself?
Do smart people want to put out to their maximum capacity?
Suppose I'm a 'smart person'. What's my motivation?

What I'm interested in is that the game shows that we intuitively reject the correct games-theoretical response, which is to accept any offer. — Banno

You are simplifying the game too much. There is a downside to being a push-over who will accept the tiniest offer -- future events would tend to perpetuate this inequity. You already accepted the theory's suggestion without your own input, thereby supporting the theory's suggestion to accept what was offered to you without question.

My sense of fairness is worth more that $1 or even $10. If it were $10,000, that would be a different thing. On the other hand, telling someone to go fry ice when he tries to stiff me for thousands might be worth it. — T Clark

So this strikes me as the real question, particularly whether the rejections are artifacts related to insignificant amounts being offered and whether as actual rewards increase whether rejections decrease.

The experiment has been done many times, in a wide variety of societies. One experiment in Indonesia used the equivalent of two weeks wages, not an insignificant amount, and found much the same result. — Banno

I located the abstract, but couldn't find the complete study.

It stated:

"Implementing the ultimatum game experimentally in Indonesia makes it possible to raise the stakes to three times the monthly expenditure of the average participant. Contrary to predictions in the literature, the results show no evidence of approaching the sub-game perfect, selfish outcomes. Responders seem to be just as willing to reject a given percentage offer at high stakes as at low stakes, and Proposers make slightly less selfish offers as the stakes increase. "

What three times the monthly expenditure is isn't set forth in the abstract.

This site indicates average monthly expenses in Bali to be from $720 to $2,600 (in USD). This number will be lower if rent is shared. But assuming the amount was under $3,000 total, that remains low enough not to fully eliminate the variable of small amounts. https://www.google.com/amp/s/alittleadrift.com/should-you-move-to-bali/amp/

The biggest blow to this whole conversation is found here in this study that I found:

"Our main result is that proportionally equivalent offers are less likely to be rejected with high stakes. In fact, our paper is the first to present evidence that as stakes increase, rejection rates approach zero."

Below is my cite to all the abstracts, and you'll have to scroll through to find them all. As to the one cited just above, it appears in this list, but I've also screen shot it.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Raising-the-Stakes-in-the-Ultimatum-Game%3A-Evidence-Cameron/675df095394082a09803925c4d2fcaa3cbfff309



My takeaway from my hour of research here is that as actual dollars increase, rejections decrease, but to the extent we can afford to fuck those who try to fuck us, we will, but there is a limit to how much we will spend on the joy of vindictiveness.

Sounds reasonable.

My intuition is that people value earned money differently than money from other sources (e.g. gifted money). I’d like to say a $1 is a $1 but I’m more inclined to spend birthday money given to me than I am money I’ve earned working.

I envision Banno and I sitting at the table. Banno realizing that he is the only rational one sitting at the table offers me $9 and himself $1 to maximize his gain.

My takeaway from my hour of research here is that as actual dollars increase, rejections decrease, but to the extent we can afford to fuck those who try to fuck us, we will, but there is a limit to how much we will spend on the joy of vindictiveness. — Hanover

Ahh, I see. The real self-interest, or greed factor does display itself, but in the actions of the receiver rather than in the actions of the one who makes the offer. That makes sense, because the one making the offer is in the unknown and must make decision based on possibility or assumed probability, and might be punished by the other for making an ill-judgement. The one receiving has only two possibilities, take, or punish the other. And the amount taken has a value in an outside system. So punishing the other, which is only a part of the experimental system, becomes less and less relevant as the reward in the outside system, which is fundamentally more important, increases.

In other words, I don't mind punishing another for bad behaviour, if it only costs me a little. And if the amount of bribery is sufficient, and the bad behaviour is rather insignificant, anyone would gladly refrain from punishing.