barbarian_style
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2011
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 154
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Because it isn't your money to decide what to do with. You're only responsible for it.
Actually it is. It's called the Dictator Game and is a test of personal utility vs. altruism. It's been done in person in a lab setting many times.
Interestingly, in all experiments involving this game, most of the participants in the dictator role end up alotting money to the other person instead of keeping it all.
It shows that humans have an altruistic core, even with others they don't know. While theorists offer explanations for why the dictator would not maximize their own alottment, it may also partially disprove the economic theory that all humans are purely self-interested actors. I wanted to see if the results would be similar with people at DP and they were. The overwhelming majority would give some portion of the money away instead of keeping it all - and more would give half than in any other category. The fact that people know practically nothing about the receiver does not change the outcome.
Thanks everyone for participating.
Actually it is. It's called the Dictator Game and is a test of personal utility vs. altruism. It's been done in person in a lab setting many times.
Interestingly, in all experiments involving this game, most of the participants in the dictator role end up alotting money to the other person instead of keeping it all.
It shows that humans have an altruistic core, even with others they don't know. While theorists offer explanations for why the dictator would not maximize their own alottment, it may also partially disprove the economic theory that all humans are purely self-interested actors. I wanted to see if the results would be similar with people at DP and they were. The overwhelming majority would give some portion of the money away instead of keeping it all - and more would give half than in any other category. The fact that people know practically nothing about the receiver does not change the outcome.
Thanks everyone for participating.
First, I wouldn't touch the money if it didn't come from a clean source, I really don't need the money.
I'll take money from anyone, whether the money is clean or not, as long as they understand I won't do anything dirty in return. Taking their money doesn't help them. It's giving money to dirty people that's morally unacceptable.
Let's change the game now.
Have people do some kind of "work" for that money.
I'm betting the results would change.
I don't think this proves altruism, at all.
For one, the people are being observed by others.
They haven't factored in the visible social benefit from being fair, with found money.
Actually it is. It's called the Dictator Game and is a test of personal utility vs. altruism. It's been done in person in a lab setting many times.
Interestingly, in all experiments involving this game, most of the participants in the dictator role end up alotting money to the other person instead of keeping it all.
It shows that humans have an altruistic core, even with others they don't know. While theorists offer explanations for why the dictator would not maximize their own alottment, it may also partially disprove the economic theory that all humans are purely self-interested actors. I wanted to see if the results would be similar with people at DP and they were. The overwhelming majority would give some portion of the money away instead of keeping it all - and more would give half than in any other category. The fact that people know practically nothing about the receiver does not change the outcome.
Thanks everyone for participating.
Yes and that is admitted in the snippet I posted. However, the same experiment has been conducted with the anonymity factor and the results are similar although the alottment tends to be less. That was going to be part II of this experiment on DP, but I thought people might get tired of seeing the same thing.
I think altruism is still a factor here.
Altruism is selfless giving, if it makes you feel good to give, it isn't altruistic.
If feeling good about helping other humans is built-in, then it still proves that altruism is part of our nature since there is a biological reward for doing so.
That's splitting hairs. Feeling good about giving can be included in some people's personal utility, but you can't generalize all people based on it. You'd also have to prove that feeling good is the source of giving, instead of being a secondary byproduct of intending to give.
If feeling good about helping other humans is built-in, then it still proves that altruism is part of our nature since there is a biological reward for doing so.
It's not splitting hairs at all.
Feeling good is what you receive for giving people material resources.
It's a benefit, just not a tangible benefit.
I understand you, I'm just pointing out the flaw in that determination. Just because someone feels good from being altruistic does not necessarily mean they do it because it feels good. If altruism must mean that there are no benefits to the person giving then altruism does not exist, according to how you have defined it. That's why I feel you are splitting hairs. We can argue about whether the chicken or the egg came first all day, but the fact remains that people are altruistic by nature.
i'm not buying that this test proves.disproves altruism...primarily because it seemingly supposes motive.
I'm for giving it all away to the other person, but that doesn't mean altruism is behind me doing so.
i simply don't need the money and I don't want the headaches of dividing it up and then going through the hassles of paying taxes on it.. let alone having that transaction red-flagged by the bank and investigated.
to me, i'm giving away a set of problem I don't want to deal with.
It could be instinct.
Kinda like sex, we do it because it feels good, it feels good because it encourages us to procreate.
Sorta kinda like that.
I voted 50%, because all I need is enough to keep me comfortable for the rest of my life, and I'm not that greedy.
Well, it's highly possible that we've just been psychologically conditioned to feel good about it. We're taught from a very young age to be *nice*, which implies that thoughts of self-interest are to be supressed, which is total bunk.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?