From my heart and from my hands why don't people understand my intentions?

I'm an Outsider Drunken Democrat. What's that make me?

If I'm weird among the WEIRD, does that mean I'm normal?

the Machiguenga considered the idea of offering half your money downright weird - and rejecting an insultingly low offer even weirder.

Logically the second person should accept any amount of money, it's free money and they have nothing to lose. It would actually be a really prickish thing to do to decline it, but at the same time we expect to 'split' things in situations like that, so I guess we would get pissy.

I guess we value courtesy more than some amounts of money anyway. Not really sure that's a bad thing either.

So..... according to the Ultimatum Game and other psychological tests non-Westerners are greedy, selfish, and short-sided? Yeah, I see that.....

so the article basically says that Undergrads are not representative of humanity.

STOP THE PRESSES!

Barakku: the Machiguenga considered the idea of offering half your money downright weird - and rejecting an insultingly low offer even weirder.

Logically the second person should accept any amount of money, it's free money and they have nothing to lose.

It's only logical if you take a short-term view.... by refusing unfair offers you punish people for being selfish, which might help you out in the future. Plus, by preventing someone from gaining more money than you you prevent them from gaining power over you..... since money equals power.

We're not weird, we're just more evolved than the rest of you apes.

Scrophulous Barking Duck: If I'm weird among the WEIRD, does that mean I'm normal?
Yes...

BallZach: We're not weird, we're just more evolved than the rest of you apes.

Get your paws off my money, you damn dirty apes!

eurotrader: The idea that brains actually function differently depending on the region a person is born is problematic. With a name like Henrich is he saying some groups will never be able to integrate with a united view of good and bad. If so what would be the final solution?

I see what you are trying to do there, but seriously, why is there any need for any kind of solution, final or otherwise (not that final is possible)?

We are all different. If this weren't a survival trait, there wouldn't be so farking many of us. And in any case, "right or wrong" is a thing that changes -- NOT in a "relativistic" way, but in the natural ebb and flow of events. E.g. people post-Katrina in NOLA breaking into stores for food, medicine and water that they never would have broken into pre-Katrina. Our views of good and bad change quickly or slowly, but they always change: slavery, capital punishmnet, corporal punishment, adultery, using profanity, et al. Things change. Those who can cope are, in general, better off than those who cannot.

Sorry, taking a break from setting up a PITA wireless router, and am rambling incoherently.

So what if I (being western/educated/industrialized) had offered/accepted $1. What does that make me? Normal? That ain't true.

Nescio quid dicas: So what if I (being western/educated/industrialized) had offered/accepted $1. What does that make me? Normal? That ain't true.

Either a psychopath or an economist.

Homework for those interested... Read 'evolution of cooperation' by Axelrod

Pfft, I figured this out 15 years ago when the company sent me to the stupid "seven habits" class. When we came to the part about negotiating that basically said: "if you are usually dishonest, people won't trust you."

All the born westerners were like "well, duh."

But the Asians (Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, etc.) were actually floored by this. It is more customary in their cultures to assume the other person is always lying and work from there. To them, being dishonest is how you always start off any personal or professional relationship.

/sort of like Internet dating, I guess.

BallZach: We're not weird, we're just more evolved than the rest of you apes.


That's an insensitive, ethnocentric statement bordering on racist and.....oh what the hell, I can't finish this with a straight face.

which supports my theory that humans have evolved into something different in order to live in intensely dense urban hive populations. Darwin would be proud....

ATL:DR the whole thing

But I suspect the difference is due to westerners having the idea of fairness being enforced by law and settled in courts, and having the ability to challenge in courts.

Most cultures do not have this.

tomWright: ATL:DR the whole thing

But I suspect the difference is due to westerners having the idea of fairness being enforced by law and settled in courts, and having the ability to challenge in courts.

Most cultures do not have this.

I think much of it is that we live in a society with enough resources to allow us to value "pride" over a small amount. If someone tries to split the money at a less than 70/30 ratio, we feel slighted and refuse just to punish the other person for their disrespect. When you live in regions where any amount of resource can mean the difference between living and dying, that option doesn't exist.

I think it's similar to how the "average" American sees sports figures. It's impossible for us to understand how an athlete, making millions of dollars, feels disrespected that a team "only" offered them a 60 million dollar contract. To them it makes perfect sense. To us, it seems insane.

The only rational way to play the game is to threaten to murder the offeror if he offers less than the full hundred.

we're spoiled, basically

it's like how a spoiled dog expects attention all the time and thinks that if they aren't getting a steak, things are bad

whereas a wild dog or farming dog would kill for one steak, and times are bad for them when they don't even get anything

eurotrader: The idea that brains actually function differently depending on the region a person is born is problematic. With a name like Henrich is he saying some groups will never be able to integrate with a united view of good and bad. If so what would be the final solution?

So what are the uneducated, middle American, Christian Conservatives that consistently vote against their own best interest?

Apart from retards.

Depraved, Unbenign, Middle-american, Fundamentalist, Uneducated Conservatives.
TeddyBallGame: So what are the uneducated, middle American, Christian Conservatives that consistently vote against their own best interest?

You mean people who are Depraved, Unbenign, Middle-american, Button-down, Fundamentalist, Uneducated, Christian KKKonservatives?

If I am WE, does that make me the Walrus?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I took it as western, educated, industrialized, rich, and (small-d) democratic. As in supporters of a democracy-based government system, not necessary a supporter of a political party that happens to have a donkey for its logo (not that there's anything wrong with donkeys!)

OK, there is a reason that the western world is more productive.

And many times the other parts become productive,
is when they adapt the same methods...if not some values.

I'm not saying that certain people are "superior",
but you CAN see the obvious which is more productive,
or even more efficient.

Weird, yes...Different, yes.
Superior, no...more ethical, no.
But definitely more productive.

Shoot, you can even see the difference in the US itself.
What are the differences between rural and urban?
What is the difference between central and coastal?

People may be burnt-out or bohemian.
But they produce.

limboslam,

Jesus, that is a sickening photo. WTF is happening in it?

MBA Whore: limboslam,

Jesus, that is a sickening photo. WTF is happening in it?

I believe that is a monkey head roasting over an open flame.

eurotrader: I agree people think differently depending on how they were raised and inherited genetic makeup but to say there is a fundamental difference in brain function simply because where a person is born is repugnant.

Not a fundamental difference in brain function, but differences in individual world-views. Even twins raised almost literally side-by side do not agree on everything.

And being fundamentally different should not be repugnant, unless you are (a) utterly and iredeemably devoted to the wondefulness of two valued Aristotelian logic, or (b) a large brained lab mouse bent on taking over the world. ;~)

oldebayer: eurotrader: I agree people think differently depending on how they were raised and inherited genetic makeup but to say there is a fundamental difference in brain function simply because where a person is born is repugnant.

Not a fundamental difference in brain function, but differences in individual world-views. Even twins raised almost literally side-by side do not agree on everything.

And being fundamentally different should not be repugnant, unless you are (a) utterly and iredeemably devoted to the wondefulness of two valued Aristotelian logic, or (b) a large brained lab mouse bent on taking over the world. ;~)

Wait, did you seriously just advocate polylogism? Genuine question, I'm uncertain based on your post.

I see the contest, or atleast they way they outline it, missing an uncertain something.

2 parties and 1 giver.
Both parties know, therefore interparty relations come into play. But as someone up thread mentions, the long term effect of this contest(being a given that it's repeated frequently) people would maximize their profits all around by offering half. There is less of a chance of someone getting jealous and not accepting the offer, only total dicks will be doing this at half/half. A 90/10 split may fester in a close relationship down the road a ways, or set a wedge between 2 new acquaintances right from the get go.

What's "wierd" is that some supposed civilizations don't think in the long term, nor understand the concept of being team player(by and large if we all took 50% and ran, we could bilk this company for millions, and leave them with no real analysis for their advertising department, we win twice!...or something along those lines).

In general, you stick a group of us together and put us to a project, we'll get along and we'll all attempt a fair amount of work, praise the guy who goes above, and ostrasize the slacker(eventually). It's that dynamic that has led us to a rapid rise since we got started here. We know how to play as a team. Even the slacker serves a purpose, in being a scape goat he provides a means for bonding with the rest of the group, and the guy who does good is envied to a point, and encourages others to do better.

In general mind you....

As for the picture:
It(the above) is why we're not sitting around on rickety furniture, with a pitcher of water and 1 glass to go around and a towel for entertainment.(Or is that what the boy is for?)

But thanks to captain obvious and his fanny pack, we have this fine thread in which to discuss such things, even if the way the article is written is almost slander against us wierdos.(or libel?...whatever)

BioGuy741: MBA Whore: limboslam,

Jesus, that is a sickening photo. WTF is happening in it?

I believe that is a monkey head roasting over an open flame.


The body is roasting, the head is just getting singed a bit(brains overcook really really easy).....but yeah.

Unless there's some mad photoshop there, they're burning a monkey on a metal grill of some sort. In which case, it's not smiling, it's just dead and that's the way it's face hangs(you try holding a monkey there like that, much less get him to smile!)

/sickening for sure

That's why the rest of the world is poor and we have actually made a decent society for ourselves. Yeah, I went there.

Although I do wonder, what comes first- a changed societal outlook, or prosperity? Back when Europe was dirt poor, they must have been similar enough to the rest of the world.

Guns, Germs and Steel.

The "West" rose and dominates the global scene in no small part for a degree of institutionalized fairness to allow for more a far more expedient execution of commercial activity.

Take away those 100 dollars for the non-WEIRD folks and put in a cow, or a dozen chickens, or a new hunting rifle, or brand new set of tools for their craft. Context, perceived value, and utility all come in to play.

The concept is a question, and now you can bet there will be many Masters and PhD students of Psych or subsidiary and related disciplines who will spend the next 3-5 years trying to answer it.

Do I understand correctly that the recipient has had the rules of the game explained to him? If so, it isn't weird. The recipient realizes that since the donor needs the recipient's agreement in order to benefit, that makes them equal partners in the transaction. Equal partners get equal shares. Plus, Westerners have the luxury of walking away from a few dollars.

Jlop985: Although I do wonder, what comes first- a changed societal outlook, or prosperity?

History seems to show that it's a specific sort of prosperity that has to come first. The prosperity has to come from the development of a middle class of skilled artisans within the society, rather than the discovery of a new resource or the plundering of such resources from other people. Prosperity from resource acquisition only produces baser drives, a desire to hoard and protect resources rather than maintain or enhance the ones alreasy present. Social change to enhance prosperity without greater resource consumption only occurs when the acquired resources are nearly depleted and can't be easily replenished, pretty much when the society has no choice but to find some other way to maintain their prosperity.

Cinaed: The "West" rose and dominates the global scene in no small part for a degree of institutionalized fairness to allow for more a far more expedient execution of commercial activity.

It's actually more the perception of fairness that allows us to work together well enough to dominate. That's why our dominance is disintegrating... our respect for the enforced fairness of our legal system is diminishing, even though its actual, objective fairness was previously improving. Being objectively fair is no longer fair enough, in our eyes... instead the law has to always find each of us inviduals perfectly blameless for anything we claim to be blameless for, in order to be considered "fair." And now we struggle to change the laws to bring about this type of "fairness," without giving any thought to how unfair it really is to other people, or what will happen to us when someone else decides to use this sort of "fairness" against us.

JNowe: Do I understand correctly that the recipient has had the rules of the game explained to him? If so, it isn't weird. The recipient realizes that since the donor needs the recipient's agreement in order to benefit, that makes them equal partners in the transaction. Equal partners get equal shares. Plus, Westerners have the luxury of walking away from a few dollars.

Except if the recipient decides he doesn't mind screwing over the other guy, and demanding more or no deal. It's not always guaranteed that you'll get someone who believes in equality, though it's much more likely in democratic societies than third-world authoritarian ones. The game is structured so that, if one of the two decides to be the bully and demand more than his fair share, then the other has no choice but to either acquiesce or screw up the deal for both of them. The number of bullies in a society, and the response of the bullied to them, is what the test is really designed to measure.

Tatterdemalian: JNowe: Do I understand correctly that the recipient has had the rules of the game explained to him? If so, it isn't weird. The recipient realizes that since the donor needs the recipient's agreement in order to benefit, that makes them equal partners in the transaction. Equal partners get equal shares. Plus, Westerners have the luxury of walking away from a few dollars.

Except if the recipient decides he doesn't mind screwing over the other guy, and demanding more or no deal. It's not always guaranteed that you'll get someone who believes in equality, though it's much more likely in democratic societies than third-world authoritarian ones. The game is structured so that, if one of the two decides to be the bully and demand more than his fair share, then the other has no choice but to either acquiesce or screw up the deal for both of them. The number of bullies in a society, and the response of the bullied to them, is what the test is really designed to measure.


Yup, that scenario would fail too. Sounds like the game was designed with Westerners in mind; if in other cultures the recipient is just taking whatever is offered, the game fails.

btw, does the writer's continued use of all-caps WEIRD make anyone else thing that he has a book forthcoming?

JNowe: Yup, that scenario would fail too. Sounds like the game was designed with Westerners in mind; if in other cultures the recipient is just taking whatever is offered, the game fails.

Know how I can tell you don't really understand science?

/keep screaming at the facts, they'll go away eventually

Cinaed: Guns, Germs and Steel.

The "West" rose and dominates the global scene in no small part for a degree of institutionalized fairness to allow for more a far more expedient execution of commercial activity.

Take away those 100 dollars for the non-WEIRD folks and put in a cow, or a dozen chickens, or a new hunting rifle, or brand new set of tools for their craft. Context, perceived value, and utility all come in to play.

The concept is a question, and now you can bet there will be many Masters and PhD students of Psych or subsidiary and related disciplines who will spend the next 3-5 years trying to answer it.

This, or replace the 100 with 100 million in our society. Offer me $10 so you can keep $90 and I'll tell you to go fark yourself. Offer me $10 million and I don't care what you get out of it, I'm taking it.

Barakku: the Machiguenga considered the idea of offering half your money downright weird - and rejecting an insultingly low offer even weirder.

Logically the second person should accept any amount of money, it's free money and they have nothing to lose. It would actually be a really prickish thing to do to decline it, but at the same time we expect to 'split' things in situations like that, so I guess we would get pissy.

I guess we value courtesy more than some amounts of money anyway. Not really sure that's a bad thing either.

I'd be interested to see a followup study, but with a much larger amount of money, and see where the same points fall then. If it's, say, $1,000,000, and you're offered only 1%, would the same people turn it down? How much do we value courtesy and what we perceive as fairness?