RSS Feeds
All we want is a fair shake
1.
This does not tell me anything. I am sorry I read it. total gibberish
2. "But a new study out of UCLA seems to suggest a bit sunnier view of human nature." Really?? To me it illustrates that stupidity and spitefulness are common among the refusing recipients. Why punish yourself just to punish someone else? Reminds me of the complaints of people who pay no income taxes when actual tax payers get a break.
3. "Yet it seems that, particularly after the Reagan (or Alex P. Keaton) era, our language betrays an almost Hobbesian world view: Bellum omnium contra omnes ("The war of all against all")." Um... so... since Reagan, Americans have been speaking in Latin? That about sums up the backwards sense of fairness Mr. Rodriguez has.
4. It is only in this Liberal era, in which we are now living, that we even take time to equate how a recipient feels about getting something for nothing. Earn it and you will really feel good about yourself. Self-interest begins with ones self and what must I do to survive? Not with how much can someone give me or what portion of someone else's earnings must I get to make me feel good? WOW, what a world the liberals are attempting to construct.
5. The author of this article is stepping on the slippery ground of basing social theories on scientific principles. This would usually be accompanied with broad generalizations if not misleading explanations of human relations. This research seems to have examined the brain reaction of the recipient of the money rather than the person giving it. Wanting to receive at least a fair share does not say much about the person’s humanistic tendencies. If anything, it says more about wanting as much as possible for oneself. This article would have been more plausible if this was a study of the brain of the person giving the money.
6. Previous commenters are kind of missing the point. The ultimatum game has a huge history; this is special because of the brain scans. Neither person has earned the money, so "I haven't earned it" likely doesn't register. The other person isn't sharing earnings, they are sharing money that was given to them for the express purpose of being shared. And it is an empirical fact that people tend to reject offers that are far from 50-50. Those are the final results. I do not have the numbers at my fingertips, but people are very likely to reject a minimum-maximum offer, regardless of what in theory you think they should do.
7. It's a stretch to call any handout of free money "unfair" and to suggest the "unfairness" stimulated negative emotion. You need to look at the converse possibility that the recipient was being unfair in expecting a "fair" split to begin with and, to be spiteful, declined the "unfair" offer just to force a negative outcome on the giver. Do you attribute the negative emotion to the offer itself or to the predisposition of the recipient?
8. Seems the recipients were more satisfied the more they got, which is what's expected and closer to Hobbes. The giver offering too little could feel some guilt OR concern that if it's too little, his offer won't be accepted and he'll get nothing. Greed again. Then of course the tiny study of 12 people, who may be self-selecting to be inclined to be helpful since most people wouldn't bother. Then there's culture: this is America where despite our world image now we've always been more altruistic, wanting to "share our democracy," than communist countries and those run be dictators where people learn to take what they can to survive.
9. I think everyone is missing some information. Person 1 and Person 2 are given the money. Person 1 determines the split. Person 2 says yes or no. If Person 2 says no then no one gets the money. Person 1 only gets money when Person 2 gets money. Its free money for both of them. The fairist split would be 50-50 but Person 1 could be generous and give more money to Person 2 or selfish and give less money to Person 2. I am curious to see what the brain scans on Person 2 would be if they got a 60% share from Person 1.
10. Fascinating how so many comments characterize player B as the "recipient" and observe that he should be grateful for getting something for nothing from someone who 'earned' the money, when in fact BOTH players are getting free money and being asked to share it. The real-world corollary is that those in the top ten percent of the income bracket don't actually "earn" a large proportion of their wealth- they gain it through the way our system front-loads economic advantages to those who already have. That's why a system of progressive taxes is fair, and why ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest is the right thing to do.
Submitted by: huh?
2. "But a new study out of UCLA seems to suggest a bit sunnier view of human nature." Really?? To me it illustrates that stupidity and spitefulness are common among the refusing recipients. Why punish yourself just to punish someone else? Reminds me of the complaints of people who pay no income taxes when actual tax payers get a break.
Submitted by: Sweetness
3. "Yet it seems that, particularly after the Reagan (or Alex P. Keaton) era, our language betrays an almost Hobbesian world view: Bellum omnium contra omnes ("The war of all against all")." Um... so... since Reagan, Americans have been speaking in Latin? That about sums up the backwards sense of fairness Mr. Rodriguez has.
Submitted by: BB
4. It is only in this Liberal era, in which we are now living, that we even take time to equate how a recipient feels about getting something for nothing. Earn it and you will really feel good about yourself. Self-interest begins with ones self and what must I do to survive? Not with how much can someone give me or what portion of someone else's earnings must I get to make me feel good? WOW, what a world the liberals are attempting to construct.
Submitted by: Jon
5. The author of this article is stepping on the slippery ground of basing social theories on scientific principles. This would usually be accompanied with broad generalizations if not misleading explanations of human relations. This research seems to have examined the brain reaction of the recipient of the money rather than the person giving it. Wanting to receive at least a fair share does not say much about the person’s humanistic tendencies. If anything, it says more about wanting as much as possible for oneself. This article would have been more plausible if this was a study of the brain of the person giving the money.
Submitted by: Nooshin Afshani
6. Previous commenters are kind of missing the point. The ultimatum game has a huge history; this is special because of the brain scans. Neither person has earned the money, so "I haven't earned it" likely doesn't register. The other person isn't sharing earnings, they are sharing money that was given to them for the express purpose of being shared. And it is an empirical fact that people tend to reject offers that are far from 50-50. Those are the final results. I do not have the numbers at my fingertips, but people are very likely to reject a minimum-maximum offer, regardless of what in theory you think they should do.
Submitted by: Psychohistorian
7. It's a stretch to call any handout of free money "unfair" and to suggest the "unfairness" stimulated negative emotion. You need to look at the converse possibility that the recipient was being unfair in expecting a "fair" split to begin with and, to be spiteful, declined the "unfair" offer just to force a negative outcome on the giver. Do you attribute the negative emotion to the offer itself or to the predisposition of the recipient?
Submitted by: Michael
8. Seems the recipients were more satisfied the more they got, which is what's expected and closer to Hobbes. The giver offering too little could feel some guilt OR concern that if it's too little, his offer won't be accepted and he'll get nothing. Greed again. Then of course the tiny study of 12 people, who may be self-selecting to be inclined to be helpful since most people wouldn't bother. Then there's culture: this is America where despite our world image now we've always been more altruistic, wanting to "share our democracy," than communist countries and those run be dictators where people learn to take what they can to survive.
Submitted by: jane
9. I think everyone is missing some information. Person 1 and Person 2 are given the money. Person 1 determines the split. Person 2 says yes or no. If Person 2 says no then no one gets the money. Person 1 only gets money when Person 2 gets money. Its free money for both of them. The fairist split would be 50-50 but Person 1 could be generous and give more money to Person 2 or selfish and give less money to Person 2. I am curious to see what the brain scans on Person 2 would be if they got a 60% share from Person 1.
Submitted by: Robert
10. Fascinating how so many comments characterize player B as the "recipient" and observe that he should be grateful for getting something for nothing from someone who 'earned' the money, when in fact BOTH players are getting free money and being asked to share it. The real-world corollary is that those in the top ten percent of the income bracket don't actually "earn" a large proportion of their wealth- they gain it through the way our system front-loads economic advantages to those who already have. That's why a system of progressive taxes is fair, and why ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest is the right thing to do.
Submitted by: Craig
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT