Fun fact: For some cultures in Papua New Guinea, generosity is a status symbol. Giving to someone else is a way of saying "I am higher status than you". When this experiment was done there, the outcomes were flipped. Proposers would typically offer upwards of 60% and responders would typically refuse if they were offered more than 70%. Accepting more, to them, is saying "yes I am far inferior to you".

I think the fact that the responder knows about how much money was given to the proposer is a good indicator as to why they reject the money if it is 35-40% of the money. I mean, if a fellow millionaire gave me a 0.05 cent tip I would be pretty mad too.

@MindfulThinks

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly! That’s the human element to this. However if we were all “rational econs” we would just be happy to have more than nothing. Of course that’s not real life

@sallysmith6544

2 жыл бұрын

@@MindfulThinks Makes me think that the economists are just robots who cannot understand basic human emotions "Cannot compute: error!"

@ThePowerLover

2 жыл бұрын

@@MindfulThinks The problem with that experiment, is that ignores than the "ecconomic play" extends beyond the experiment itself, the subjects know that they'll live more time after the experiment, so, giving more than the minimun, and rejecting any offer lower than certain threshould, CAN lead to maximization of gains in their lives!

The problem with that experiment, is that ignores than the "ecconomic play" extends beyond the experiment itself, the subjects know that they'll live more time after the experiment, so, giving more than the minimun, and rejecting any offer lower than certain threshould, CAN lead to maximization of gains in their lives!CAN lead to maximization of gains in their lives!

@WutTheFink

Жыл бұрын

I don't think that necessarily hinders the experiment. There's really no loss for the responder if they say yes or no. In the moment, they can only gain or maintain. Knowing there will be more economic opportunity in the future doesn't change the fact that the present offer, of any amount larger than 0, is an economic gain. But as humans, we don't like watching people gain unfairly compared to ourselves, so we decline 'unfair' offers.

But I think that this example works only in defined scenario. It works, for example, if proposer (P) can make one or limited amount of deals. Than he will maximize his value aka go for the highest amount of money he can get. In your example it is 99$, and if responder (R) is rational, he will accept 1$ since 1$ > 0. But, if they can negotiate than everything changes. And sole fact that proposer (i will use P) gets money to make the deal with R is nothing but illusion since that money is not his and depend on R. So in fact, he doesn't have true leverage which is a main premise. It follows then that it would be same if example said that P didn't get the money, but that 100$ is on the table so they have to split it and get the money, or don't split it and lose money. In that scenario perceived leverage of P is not existent and R can make a mirror claim, that he won't accept anything except 99$ with the same reasoning that for P it is rational deal since 1$>0. In that scenario, if both rational, they would split it 50-50 and it would be the most rational offer. They key point of this is that it can confuse people if the rules are not clear.

Man this guy sounds like a dude carlos I went to high school with. No other comment lmao

@MindfulThinks

2 жыл бұрын

👀

@sallysmith6544

2 жыл бұрын

Careful, dont doxx him!

Are the two test subjects able to interact before the ultimatum is given? If the responder knows the proposer was given $100 to start with what if they tried to flip the table on the proposer and said “if you offer me anything less than 60% of that $100 I’m going to reject it. I’m completely willing to walk out of here with nothing.” I wonder how many proposers would either give in to the responders demand, think they are bluffing and offer a lower amount or react in spite and offer a lower amount than they were originally going to. It would also be interesting to see how original experiment changes in the amount they offer the responder if you increase the amount they were given to start with. If it’s a million dollars are they more likely to offer a 50/50 split than if it’s $100 to start because they can’t afford getting greedy and having the other person saying no? Would they even offer the responder an uneven split in the responders favor because they REALLY need the money? “I’m going to give you 600,000 because I can’t afford you saying no and 400,000 is still a lot of money.”

I have one question during the throughout the experiment: can you talk with the others? Less persons talked about this little trap that you have it in a scenario.

@shia_labeouf

2 ай бұрын

Yes. Part of the ultimatum game experiment is that all parties have all the information. The responder knows how much the proposer has been given and what will happen if they accept or refuse. Nothing is hidden as it is key to the experiment to remove that variable.

Came here while reading "How to be Human" by new scientist.

You sound a bit like Brony Notion aka Sawtooth waves

Does the responder of the Game know the rules of the Game?

@toprak3479

Жыл бұрын

Yes

I feel like anything less than a 50/50 split would make you an asshole

@astroidz7039

Жыл бұрын

It’s business everyone’s greedy

@rachelelizabethmason18

6 ай бұрын

I understand that, but I also feel like, considering the fact that the Proposer is given the money to split, and could offer $1, it’s more messed up of the Responder to say “I’d rather both of us walk out of here with nothing than for you to get $20 more than me”

@shia_labeouf

2 ай бұрын

But wouldn't it make the responder an asshole to sacrifice their own free money just so that the proposer can't have theirs?

Can't you use the psychological things you teach to trick the algorithm. you are pretty neat but why is no one here smh.

@MindfulThinks

2 жыл бұрын

If only it was that easy!

@onlychaosmatters

Жыл бұрын

​@@MindfulThinks But I think that this example works only in defined scenario. It works, for example, if proposer (P) can make one or limited amount of deals. Than he will maximize his value aka go for the highest amount of money he can get. In your example it is 99$, and if responder (R) is rational, he will accept 1$ since 1$ > 0. But, if they can negotiate than everything changes. And sole fact that proposer (i will use P) gets money to make the deal with R is nothing but illusion since that money is not his and depend on R. So in fact, he doesn't have true leverage which is a main premise. It follows then that it would be same if example said that P didn't get the money, but that 100$ is on the table so they have to split it and get the money, or don't split it and lose money. In that scenario perceived leverage of P is not existent and R can make a mirror claim, that he won't accept anything except 99$ with the same reasoning that for P it is rational deal since 1$>0. In that scenario, if both rational, they would split it 50-50 and it would be the most rational offer. They key point of this is that it can confuse people if the rules are not clear.

I do not think he responder has acted completely irrationally in the experiment. The responder knows that if he rejects the offer then the proposer also loses money. So the responder can pressurize the proposer to give him his fair share else nobody would benifit anything. Thus making a financial gain for himself.

@toprak3479

Жыл бұрын

Declining the offer after the offer has already been made doesn't pressure the proposer in any way. The proposer can't change the proposition and there are no more proposals after this one game.

Hate to break it to you, but neither economics nor rational maximization imply that the responder should accept every proposal. Only the auxiliary, but not necessary, assumption of pure self-interest is violated by that behavior. A common misconception of economics.

@ChTw03

5 ай бұрын

Economic rationality is best understood as internally consistent decision-making, FYI.

@Kavafy

5 ай бұрын

Can you explain how rational maximisation is consistent with rejecting a proposal greater than zero, given that the game is not repeated?

@ChTw03

5 ай бұрын

@Kavafy Sure! I already explained economic rationality. The question is then: what are you maximizing? Typically in economics, we say it's utility, an artificial construct we use to express preferences. But we may derive utility from anything we like. E.g. it has often been shown that people derive utility from fairness or even from rewards that others receive (because we're happy for them, known as warm glow). So, let's say I value 1 dollar for you just as much as 1 dollar for me. Then, whether we split the money 50-50 or 20-80 or 80-20, I like it all the same. Therefore, I would accept any split while still maximizing my utility and acting rationally.

@ChTw03

5 ай бұрын

You could even argue that this is still self-interest because I am maximizing MY utility from MY payoff + MY joy about your benefit. Thus, the game is only refuting self-interest if we reduce it to money.

The ultimatum game is wack