![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 19, 2018, at 5:04:09
Do you have any thoughts about this, Baseball? Or anyone... Or any of those other games... Dictator game etc...
I'm... Not sure that I care overly much about what the psychopathic first years have to say (who do such experiments for course credit if not actual money) but... Other people seem to think it might mean something...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 19, 2018, at 5:07:58
In reply to the handicap principle, posted by alexandra_k on March 19, 2018, at 5:04:09
Posted by baseball55 on March 22, 2018, at 18:21:45
In reply to the handicap principle, posted by alexandra_k on March 19, 2018, at 5:04:09
Don't know. How do the games work? I'm familiar with the ultimatum game.
Posted by sigismund on March 23, 2018, at 22:01:41
In reply to the handicap principle, posted by alexandra_k on March 19, 2018, at 5:04:09
Diplomacy used to be popular, and is, I read here, Henry Kissinger's favourite game. I feel like we are in it now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
Set before WWI, you could elect to be Austria-Hungary (which I would), Russia, Germany, UK or France. There were not many rules and treachery was to be expected..
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2018, at 1:00:18
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by baseball55 on March 22, 2018, at 18:21:45
> Don't know. How do the games work? I'm familiar with the ultimatum game.
I guess these are part of... Behavioural Economics? I'm not sure. I was wondering whether these sorts of games feature in Economics 101 type classes, or whether they are more of a niche sort of thing. Or maybe they are more of a feature of other fields (more or less) standard curriculums? Politics? Marketing?
I've encountered them mostly in the context of simple models of the evolution of altruism. Or population dynamics in response to different proportions of starting strategies (e.g., t*t for tat with co-operative bias etc). To get at whether people will punish others cheating / defecting (at personal cost to self). Whether people will cheat (if they think they can get away with it). Etc.
Right now I have an interest in whether people should play certain sorts of games...
Game 1: you put in $1, I put in $1, we both get back $1.50. If we choose to play the world has 'added value' (lets say) in that $1 was created. The distribution of value was equitable (50c each). Mutual co-operative benefit.
Game 2: you put in $1, I put in $1, you get back $3 and I get back nothing. The world has the same 'added value' as before in that $1 was created. The distribution of value was unequitable, however. There is a sense in which I am worse off (relatively) even though (objectively) the world is better.
And I suppose I can go on to describe a whole bunch of games to try and get at trade-offs between adding / subtracting from the total / overall value in the world and increasing and decreasing the equitable distribution.I'm interested in ideas around 'increasing diversity is good for us all' and 'we should be equitable to those of x race or disability or whatever 'equity group' (because of why, again?)
But I don't want to reinvent the wheel... So I thought I'd ask you if you knew of these sorts of games (in case you were like 'oh, yeah, we teach all our first years x and y and z about that sort of thing'.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2018, at 1:15:06
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by sigismund on March 23, 2018, at 22:01:41
> Diplomacy used to be popular, and is, I read here, Henry Kissinger's favourite game. I feel like we are in it now.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
>
> Set before WWI, you could elect to be Austria-Hungary (which I would), Russia, Germany, UK or France. There were not many rules and treachery was to be expected..I have never played it - but I've certainly heard of it. I don't do well at such games.
It wasn't so very long ago that I suddenly became aware that the only reason you should trust another player is because something that you see is in their interest happens to be in your interest, too. Then you can probably trust them in that... Until you see that it would actually be in their better interest to go off and do something else...
I didn't realise that was the game most people were playing, before...
I play Civilisation, quite a lot. Enjoy it, still. I have a hard time with war. With diplomacy, too. I mean, even with the notion of just wars (e.g., freeing a city state) or of just limiting a civs expansion by taking pot shots at them from around their borders... It's not really in my nature - but apparently that's where most of the fun of the game is at...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2018, at 1:51:58
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by sigismund on March 23, 2018, at 22:01:41
The idea of 'mutual benefit' is hard...
I think it is because we don't have any privacy. So there is no way to work out something of 'mutual benefit' that you can be a part of... Other people discover what you are up to while the idea is in it's infant stages and they quickly find a way to benefit themselves still more by leaving you out.
That's what you get for having all the data. All the information. All the applications... In a timely enough fashion to develop them for oneself whilst leaving the inventor out...
It is funny (strange, not funny haha) that this university wasn't interested in a research output. I've never known a university to be uninterested in a research output. The lady from the research office pooh poohed the subject I was interested in doing research for, even.
I suppose... The Arts are quite nice at Universities who actually care about the Arts. I suppose science / tech... It always was about jumping through the hoops and getting out to industry, or wherever...
Getting to work with a group who is smart and keen... Instead of cr*pp*ng about all day in teams at cross-purposes...
I suppose it's best to do stats for yourself. Defence. From the managers and micro mis-management that will occur if you trust them with statistics concerning you.
And all the health stuff... It's all contracted out. It's only 2 or 3 years at the university. It's all contracted out to private providers. Royal Colleges and Multi-Million or Billion dollar charities run by people who don't even have any income (poor them!)... Rattle that tin, on their behalf. Sigh.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2018, at 2:24:05
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2018, at 1:51:58
I think it is because we have too many managers.
I went to a different university. One that didn't have Medicine. And because it didn't have Medicine other programs had more of an opportunity to flourish. Psychology was a big deal. And psychology was a science and a social science. Psychology was a flagship program for social science.
Business / Management / Marketing was a big deal, too. Quite a lot of people did that. And then quite a lot of people did organisational psychology... Trying to merge the two...
And now we have so many managers... Layers and layers and layers of them... And that's where a fair chunk of the money goes.
People gotta make a living.
But the whole women's rights thing...
So, once upon a time men earned a salary. And with that salary they were supposed to support a family. A wife and 2.4 kids, or somesuch.
So then if women want to work, too, then we... Uh... Double the workforce. And, uh, halve the salaries? Is that how it's supposed to go?
I just mean to say that nearly doubling the workforce has to have consequences... And what is supposed to happen with salaries if a salary isn't supposed to support 4.5 people, anymore, it's only supposed to support 1.5 (or similar)?
The math doesn't add up...
And what are people supposed to do, all day? And how do we stop them from accumulating money them-wards (away from the people who are accumulating it currently)?
It's very complicated...
Posted by baseball55 on March 27, 2018, at 20:09:35
In reply to Re: the handicap principle » baseball55, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2018, at 1:00:18
I'm familiar with these. They are called public goods games - will people contribute to a public good cooperatively, or will they "free-ride" and let others contribute, while reaping the benefits. I don't teach this in intro courses. I'm not familiar enough with all the findings of behavioral/experimental economics.
I do generally teach the ultimatum game, because it's easy for my students (and me!) to understand. I won't go into the details, unless you're interested, but the findings again and again are that people would rather sacrifice their own self-interest than be seen as cheap and selfish or be treated unfairly in a face-to-face (albeit experimental) setting.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 29, 2018, at 17:04:15
In reply to Re: the handicap principle » alexandra_k, posted by baseball55 on March 27, 2018, at 20:09:35
> They are called public goods games - will people contribute to a public good cooperatively, or will they "free-ride" and let others contribute, while reaping the benefits...
> behavioral/experimental economics.
Thanks, that's really helpful.
I wasn't sure on my search terms to more of an overview of the more standard literature.
I've sort of come to this from an odd (evolution of co-operation) sort of angle.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 29, 2018, at 17:33:44
In reply to Re: the handicap principle » alexandra_k, posted by baseball55 on March 27, 2018, at 20:09:35
> I won't go into the details, unless you're interested
I am interested. But if you are bored of it, then don't feel obliged.
> the findings again and again are that people would rather sacrifice their own self-interest than be seen as cheap and selfish or be treated unfairly in a face-to-face (albeit experimental) setting.
Hmm.
Is this sort of leading up to the idea of reputation?
I remember hearing that modern group size is large and people move around the globe such that there is less consequence for freeriding / cheating / defecting than there used to be. Apparently, psychopaths / cheaters / defectors / free-riders are more common, now? Or psychopaths are running the show? Something along these lines...
Posted by baseball55 on March 29, 2018, at 20:53:33
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by alexandra_k on March 29, 2018, at 17:33:44
> I am interested. But if you are bored of it, then don't feel obliged.
>
The ultimatum game was developed to test what was the basic assumption of economics - that people rationally pursue their self-interest. Two strangers are paired together. One is given a sum of money (say $20) and must offer some amount (anywhere from $1-$20) to the other person. The second player can accept or reject the offer. If the second player accepts, the money is divvied up in accordance with the first player's offer. If the second player rejects the offer, neither gets anything.If people were driven solely by rational self-interest, then it would be in the first player's interest to offer as little as possible and in the second player's interest to accept any offer (since even $1 is better than nothing). In reality, first players generally offer slightly less than half the money. Offers less than this are generally rejected by the second player.
The implication is that first players don't want to be perceived as cheap (this also applies to tipping - why tip a waiter you'll never see again AFTER the meal has already been served? Because people don't want to be thought of as cheap). Also, that second players would rather get nothing themselves than reward a cheapskate.
Interestingly, I read a study years ago of bonobos. When one bonobo was given some grapes and the other was given cucumber slices, the second would throw the cucumber slices on the ground - not fair.
The conclusion is that people care about fairness, even when dealing with strangers they will never see again.
> Is this sort of leading up to the idea of reputation?
Not exactly, because the players don't know one another and won't continue playing with each other or with new players.
>
> I remember hearing that modern group size is large and people move around the globe such that there is less consequence for freeriding / cheating / defecting than there used to be. Apparently, psychopaths / cheaters / defectors / free-riders are more common, now? Or psychopaths are running the show? Something along these lines...This is probably true, though there have always been those curmudgeons who try to free-ride or cheat others - even in small towns they exist. I've always found it interesting that most people are cooperative in most face-to-face settings. But put people in cars and watch out! In cars, people routinely try to cut in line, yell and curse at anyone who isn't moving fast enough. Nobody does these things on sidewalks. People also act badly online and many do and say things they would never do/say in a face-to-face encounter.
>
Posted by alexandra_k on April 3, 2018, at 5:47:12
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by baseball55 on March 29, 2018, at 20:53:33
Thankyou. I found that interesting. A different slant / angle / focus from what I had heard before.
I'm not sure what else to say. Grapes are better than cucumber?
Posted by baseball55 on April 3, 2018, at 17:48:42
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by alexandra_k on April 3, 2018, at 5:47:12
> Thankyou. I found that interesting. A different slant / angle / focus from what I had heard before.
>
> I'm not sure what else to say. Grapes are better than cucumber?Hah! I guess. They're sweet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on April 10, 2018, at 20:13:02
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by baseball55 on March 29, 2018, at 20:53:33
the idea of 'self interest' is weird.
there are different definitions of what it is that is in ones own self interest.
and whether psychopathy is properly characterised as pursuit of ones own self interest in disregard of the interests (and rights) of others... or whether psychopathy is more properly characterised as a frontal lobe deficit of rationality that leads people to grabby-grab at things that appear to be in their self-interest (narrowly conceived) - but that are actually not the best thing for their interest when their interest is more broadly conceived...
i don't know that I would want to say that the monkey was sensitive to fairness so much as saying that the monkey saw something it wanted and threw a hissy that it didn't have what it wanted. that seems more like a toddler throwing a tantrum that it didn't get the biggest piece of cake than the toddler who accepts they didn't get the biggest piece of cake - but accepts that is fair because they themself dissected the portions...
i've been thinking about how many people in these parts seem to think that life is competitive and it's all about competitive advantage over others.how many people seem to crave power because power is the power to cut the cake and choose the distribution of portions, too.
i suppose that might be in their own interests in some very narrow conception of their own interests...
but the idea of cooperative or collabotative activity to genuine mutual benefit / advantage seems very alien, indeed.
it seems like any potentially cooperative / collaborative / mutally beneficial project is swiftly undermined as this, that, or the other party sees that they can profit their own short term self interest (and screw the world over, to boot) by taking more than their fair share just because they can...
i wonder if it's because of the relative proximity of gold rush frontier take your chances and strike it lucky sort of a mentality from the 'ruling classes'. i expect that's it...
i see why people are obsessed with the idea of how in earth cooperative activity is possible at all...
in the face of...
uh...
such places as New Zealand.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 20, 2018, at 21:37:10
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by alexandra_k on April 10, 2018, at 20:13:02
I actually suppose it's got more to do with history of trauma.
Like how if you have suffered scarcity (e.g., of food) then it is hard not to experience greed, later. Intense desires to hoard.
I have heard something about how rich people have the luxury of being virtuous. Of fostering the virtues, or whatever. If you are poor then you really don't have much of a choice: You are forced into criminality just to get by. Etc.
I have been thinking about that. I guess that is the game, here. There really is so much awful about. So much poverty. So many who are forced to take what they can get opportunistically just to get by. So the thing to do is to accumulate enough wealth to get away from the awful. And then to accumulate enough wealth to keep your kids away from the worst of the awful.
So you can raise your kids with other kids who have their needs met. You can raise your kids to be kind and compassionate etc because they have only really been around kind and compassionate others. But it takes quite a lot of money to keep the awful element away. To keep away those who... Have nothing to lose.
There is an awful lot of that, here, in NZ. I've felt that way, at times... Really have nothing to lose, at all. And if you have nothing to lose then why would you be moral, at all?
I was alright... Only, I wasn't. I displayed upset. Which others chose to interpret as... Well... Security guards on University Campus telling me to move along...
There are no persons in public, here...
People genuinely can't tell the difference... And most people blow with the wind (they call it 'being adaptive'...
There was this thing in the paper today about this lady who worked in a leaky asbestos filled building for years and years and years and years and years... Patients would go in there (MRI machine) and I guess it was her (as a technicion) and the patients...
And she said that adminnistrators wouldn't have worked in such a building.
And I wondered: Then why did she?
Apparently she was one of the first people to be trained in her job...
WHy did she stay? Working in such awful conditions. If she really cared for her patients why did she normalise that for them? If admin really wouldn't listen to her... Why didn't she leave? There are other machines around teh country... If she was really competent in her job why didn't she leave?
?
?
It really is the only language people here understand.
Because the people left barely understand language, at all...
Ugh.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 24, 2018, at 17:18:26
In reply to Re: the handicap principle, posted by baseball55 on April 3, 2018, at 17:48:42
Thanks Baseball.
I didn't mean to disagree with anything you had said.
Just working on developing / extending / critquing things.. I need to look at particular articles etc.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.