n 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. — Metaphysician Undercover

It seemed intuitive to me that if someone offered me say $1,000,000, my answer would be to accept it regardless because it was a very substantial, life changing amount of free money, and I couldn't reject it on some principle that the giver was receiving $9,000,000 and that wasn't fair.

Maybe this is a similar issue, but at work, we constantly have to deal with people feeling cheated when they learn a co-worker makes more than them. The disparities in pay ofter arise just from when they were hired and where the market was at the time so that long time employees might make less than a new hire. I understand the feeling, but we can't raise salaries across the board everytime there is a market fluctuation either. It's also an interesting dynamic where someone will be happy with their rate of pay until they learn someone made more than them. It's as if their pay is satisfactory as long as they are making the most.

You'd almost think that someone would rather make less somewhere else as long as they were the highest paid where they went.

What I tell people is that there is no fairness principle that determines pay and that the salary a person is willing to accept has to be based upon their own personal needs, what they believe they will be able to obtain in the market, and whether other opportunities are overall more attractive, but they're going to drive themselves crazy worrying about how much they make compared to each other person.

Maybe all of this related to what we're talking about here. It seems like it is somehow.

Does self-interest have to incorporate simply monetary gain? Keeping one's dignity can be in one's self-interest, perhaps. — schopenhauer1

:up: My thoughts too.

We're getting there. Social relations have symbolic importance and money is a form of social relation, but not the only one. Of course, we're so degraded in our understanding of ourselves, we can with straight faces talk about game theory and evolution as if they matter more than the fact that we are constituted as sets of symbolic relations and don't exist as subjects outside those relations, so when we talk about rearranging them, that process has to be looked on holistically to be understood. Fracturing it into a bunch of mathematical, economic and evolutionary hoohaha is symptomatic of a deeper problem that makes such puzzles even superficially coherent. The whole discourse is intellectually stultifying imo.

joy of vindictiveness. — Hanover

Priceless.

I was thinking about this. I assume the responder is not given a chance to negotiate with the proposer. That would probably make a big difference.

I wonder if this is where the phrase "fifty-four forty or fight" came from. [lie] Little known fact - the US dollar was only valued at 94 cents back in the 1800s. [/lie]

Let me add that economists are amongst the most deranged group of fabulists on the planet and their versions of "rationality" tend to hover in that unenviable single-consonant space between the inane and the insane.

very substantial, life changing amount — Hanover

I think this would be the issue for me. If someone tried to screw me like this, I would be temped to refuse the offer unless it were a life-changing amount. Just think of the joy of vindictiveness!

Filling out the above a bit:

A rational analysis of the set-up recognizes it as an exchange relation between the currencies of respect and money which are transferable on the symbolic level, so any unequal division translates into an offer of money for respect. And it’s rational to give respect a non-zero value (even common sense informs us that in many social situations, respect can act almost indistinguishably from money, e.g. in influencing people, gaining favour etc…).

Also, note that the exchange happens on both an interpersonal and an intrasocial level (i.e. between the two game players and in their social context). On an interpersonal level, respect is valued against money as a ratio of comparative gain (80:20–that’s bad!..); on the intrasocial as a relative norm (...but 5000 bucks is a lot of money!). And the interpersonal and intrasocial must be taken into consideration even if the latter recedes into relative irrelevance for lower sums. So, it makes sense as per Hanover’s analysis that as the sums increase the intrasocial monetary benefit begins to outweigh the interpersonal loss of respect.

Anyhow, respect (along with dignity, honour, etc, however you want to characterise it) is as real as money (and yes, pies) but these “puzzles” with their gerrymandered versions of rationality seem designed to obscure that.

...to fuck those who try to fuck us — Hanover

I'm interested in why folk see someone who is giving them money for nothing as fucking them over.

Sure, they get more than you, but you still get something for nothing.

Contrary to predictions in the literature, the results show no evidence of approaching the sub-game perfect, selfish outcomes. — Hanover

Yep.

Let me add that economists are amongst the most deranged group of fabulists on the planet and their versions of "rationality" tend to hover in that unenviable single-consonant space between the inane and the insane. — Baden

This is the best conclusion.

For my own part, if the amount is trivial my inclination would be to give the whole of it to the responder.

This would at the least leave my contribution as a statistical outlier, hopefully somewhat fucking the results; and perhaps have the experimenter engage in some reconceptualising by having to rethink whether my giving the whole amount to the responder counts as "sharing".

And as responder, if the amount were more than a cup of coffee, I'd take it. Again, this would be to the detriment of the experimenter. They are the ones benefiting from a refusal. Don't let them have their data for nothing.

I'm interested in why folk see someone who is giving them money for nothing as fucking them over.

Sure, they get more than you, but you still get something for nothing. — Banno

They're not giving you something for nothing. They're giving you money to buy their right to keep some money. They are buying a favor from you, and in this fucked up scenario, we have created a market that sells favors and pays folks not to randomly deprive money from strangers.

I'm not sure what these experiments really show other than how otherwise normal people might attempt to navigate a world where arbitrary power controls the random distribution of money. I'd suspect that after a few generations of living in such a world, behaviors would become more survival oriented. Fortunately, right now, we'd run around like chickens with their heads cut off, not knowing what makes sense because that's not how the world works.

They're giving you money to buy their right to keep some money. They are buying a favor from you, — Hanover

AN interesting perspective - nice.

All the same, the responder has no monetary investment. There refusal is a net loss in economic terms. Their agreement is a win-win. This is so regardless of the money involved.

I gather we are in agreement that the experiments show that Homo Economicus is a myth, at least for small values..?

The game is played exactly one time. — Banno

No it isn't. It is being played over and over, all the time, everywhere. If it were not so it would be of no interest to anyone. You and I may only play once, but I will get better treatment from others if it becomes known that I speak softly, but carry a big stick. this is called 'investment'. As every criminal kno.

Sure. I said as much in

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. — Banno

...but less succinctly.

we intuitively reject the correct games-theoretical response, which is to accept any offer. — Banno

Because tomorrow the offer will be even worse. I'm saying the theory is wrong if it claims it is only played once. One's wages are paid weekly.

Let's try and make this experiment a real world situation.

The king (the responder) tells you (the offererer) to pay him his fair tax by giving him a percentage of your crops, and if you don't, he salts your fields.

You've got to guess what fair means. If you're wrong, it's a lose/lose for both you and the king.

Homo economicus tries to be rational, not wanting to end up with nothing, but not wanting to give up most of his labor just to be allowed to keep some scraps.

The king wants to set a price. The subject wants to avoid tyranny.

I get my scenario is different. The offerer here earned his crops and the responder is an arbitrary ruler, but if you don't add a semblance of reality (as in explaining how wealth just appears in someone's hands and why they now must offer some or lose it all), I'm not sure it proves much of anything.

One's wages are paid weekly. — unenlightened

Yes.

...applying a stochastic games theoretical strategy — Banno

It remains that it is dubious those rejecting an offer made an explicit decision based on an internal argument that permitting the unfairness would result in the propagation of unfair behaviour into the future, and so that it was in their best interest to reject the offer. Rather, it was based on some intuition along the lines of "this is unfair".

Such justifications are back-constructs.

I don't see a point to your example. Sure, adding context changes the outcome. Changing the game changes the game.

Are we in agreement that the experiments show that Homo Economicus is a myth?

Homo Economicus is a myth? — Banno

Yes, that's what makes it dangerous. The bigger the lie...

But in a world where everyone is the sociopathic embodiment of an imaginary token that subsumes all human relationships, it's fine.

...the reduction of all human interaction to transactions. Yep.

Again, what the ultimatum game shows is that folk do not work in this way. Our intuition is doing something more than just a straight forward self-interest.

Our intuition is doing something more than just a straight forward self-interest. — Banno

Game theory assumes a-sociality. But you don't get me I'm part of the union. I wrote an essay on that back in the day. The prisoner's dilemma is set up to isolate, and this game is stipulated as one-shot, for the same reason: to preserve the individual free of the taint of social influence. It was always the theory of a sociopath.

Our intuition is doing something more than just a straight forward self-interest. — Banno

Of course, isn't that obvious to you? We didn't need the experiment to demonstrate that. We have certain deep seated tendencies which some people call innate ideas. In the Plato/Forms thread we discussed the innate idea of equality. In your referenced experiment it shows up as a sense of equity. In philosophy this sense of equality serves as the basis for conceptions like "natural rights". The same intuition which makes me want to punish you for not being fair (even at my expense), also inclines me to believe in human rights and equality.

We might, as philosophers, delve into an investigation as to how such innate ideas exist,. And we'll see, as Plato did in his investigation into the meaning of "just", the reason for a wide range of human behaviours in the responses demonstrated in the experiment. There is inconsistency between individuals within one's own particular understanding of the supposed innate ideas. The supposed innate ideas manifest differently in different people. We might take this as an indication that there is no such thing as an innate idea, but if you go to the other extreme you end up in unenlighten's category of sociopath.

So we might reject the descriptive terms, "innate ideas", as wrong because they give an inaccurate impression of what is there, but we cannot deny the reality of the behaviour, and its cause, which the words are meant to refer to. The discrepancy between the description and the thing described indicates that we have a poor understanding of what is there. Therefore further philosophy is required.

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? — Banno

You are overthinking this. We ought to do what feels right (or what you think is right - whichever word you prefer). That's just what ought means.

I'm not sure what these experiments really show other than how otherwise normal people might attempt to navigate a world where arbitrary power controls the random distribution of money. — Hanover

The experiments falsify game theory predictions. Despite all the "isn't it obvious?" sentiment going in this thread, that's not a trivial result, though not entirely unexpected. Game theory is a powerful and successful theory, whatever people say. It was never meant to represent the full extent of human relationships, but pragmatically, it works well enough in a lot of real-world situations.

Also a point about the experimental setup being artificial and unrealistic. That is common to experiments, which try to isolate certain features and exclude confounders. So that in itself is not a good criticism. In this case the idea was to draw a contrast with game theory predictions, and that means creating conditions where the kind of rational self-interest that a game theory solution would take into account would not predict the result. This is why the experiments try to rule out social factors - reputation, reciprocity and all that - which a sophisticated game-theoretical simulation could account for.

Also a point about the experimental setup being artificial and unrealistic. That is common to experiments, which try to isolate certain features and exclude confounders. So that in itself is not a good criticism. In this case the idea was to draw a contrast with game theory predictions, and that means creating conditions where the kind of rational self-interest that a game theory solution would take into account would not predict the result. — SophistiCat

Fundamentally, humans are driven to survival, not toward selfish promotion. If it works toward our survival that we abuse one another, we will, and the same holds true for cooperation. But we don't intuit our best survival techniques a priori. We learn through trial and error (natural selection).

So, if you toss me into a dystopia where I am to decide how much to give away to avoid your spite, I'm not fully adapted to such an environment, so I may use my adaptations gained in my normal world to my disadvantage. On the planet I evolved, we have expectations that you share a certain amount with me if you expect mutual respect from me, and consequences result if you violate that norm.

This means that how your test subjects react in this generation will vary in future generations as you continue to expose people to this new adaptation.

This experiment tests adaptations, not inherent human nature. This test just reveals the incompetence of those without the agility to immediately adapt, and as @Banno even noted, some will identify they are being tested and will respond by trying to invalidate the test by offering absurd responses. This too is an evolutionary reaction, trying to eliminate a threat by those who wish to study us as objects.

Fundamentally, humans are driven to survival, not toward selfish promotion. If it works toward our survival that we abuse one another, we will, and the same holds true for cooperation. But we don't intuit our best survival techniques a priori. We learn through trial and error (natural selection).

So, if you toss me into a dystopia where I am to decide how much to give away to avoid your spite, I'm not fully adapted to such an environment, so I may use my adaptations gained in my normal world to my disadvantage. On the planet I evolved, we have expectations that you share a certain amount with me if you expect mutual respect from me, and consequences result if you violate that norm.

This means that how your test subjects react in this generation will vary in future generations as you continue to expose people to this new adaptation. — Hanover

We find ourselves in "dystopian" situations more commonly than you think. Evolutionary and cultural adaptations serve to improve fitness on average and over long timescales. They do not fine-tune our behavior perfectly for every possible situation that we may face in this world.

This experiment tests adaptations, not inherent human nature. — Hanover

This wording is confusing, but I think you meant that this experiment tests the ability to adapt to the situation, as opposed to acting on instinct or habit. But this too is not right: there is no right or wrong way to behave in this experiment, so those acting on instinct are not failing a test. The idea is to find out whether people will act "rationally" (in the game theoretic sense). And the conclusion is that they generally don't - presumably, because the desire for and the expectation of fairness interferes with "rational" considerations. (Could be other reasons as well, such as fucking with experimenters, but I don't think that is very common.)

You are overthinking this. We ought to do what feels right (or what you think is right - whichever word you prefer). That's just what ought means. — SophistiCat

Rather, you are under-thinking it. Saying that we ought do what is right is trivial; that's just what "ought" is.

The joke is that any choice is rational, hence any choice is right.

We are, for better or worse, condemned to be free. — Moliere

seems to appreciate the joke. and not so much, still wanting a determination, which is somewhat of a surprise.

But you, Sophist?

Il est facile de voir que ... someone, I don't know who exactly, has made a glaring error.

Fundamentally, humans are driven to survival, not toward selfish promotion. If it works toward our survival that we abuse one another, we will, and the same holds true for cooperation. But we don't intuit our best survival techniques a priori. We learn through trial and error (natural selection). — Hanover

It appears like you are mixing things up here. The natural tendencies which I am born with, form the basis of my intuitions, the innate features which influence my thinking. It is not I who has learned these through trial and error, these are qualities passed to me from others who lived before me. And since the qualities I get in this way, have been selected for by natural selection, rather than by the agent doing the testing, we cannot call it "trial and error". That's a different concept from natural selection. In order to call this trial and error we would need to assume an overarching "life" as a form of being, which is learning from natural selection.

So we actual do intuit our best survival techniques a priori, because they are produced prior to one's own experience, and are innate to the person. But this was not a case of learning something through trial and error, it was a case of something being produced by natural selection. On top of this, the complicating factor is that natural selection has produced the capacity for an individual to learn from one's own experiences in one's own environment, and make decisions based on these learned factors, rather than the innate features. Now the learned knowledge appears to have the capacity to overrule the innate in judgement. And, we must consider this capacity to learn anew, and overrule the selected for qualities, to be a selected for quality itself. Therefore it appears like one of the innate tendencies, which has been selected for, as well-suited for survival, is the innate tendency to allow for the innate tendencies to be overruled by something freshly learned. On the other hand, it seems like this would have to be self-destructive. Allowing all those qualities which have been selected for as best suited for survival, to be overruled by a free will whim, would have to be itself a self-destructive quality. So the basic innate tendency is a tendency toward self-destruction, nut this constitutes "survival" for that overarching being of "life".