3 ms·

This is an odd paper. It reads like a so-so experimental game theory paper written by an anthropologist. The task was designed to produce Nash equilibria that w

This is an odd paper. It reads like a so-so experimental game theory paper written by an anthropologist. The task was designed to produce Nash equilibria that would fit story they wanted to tell. And they as though they are surprised to see "the behavior of the two partners is only qualitatively similar to" the behavior the game was designed to elicit. I think that the most interesting finding is buried halfway down. "Another interesting observation is that for greater rank differences (lower k), the higher ranked individuals are prone to share an amount larger than the Nash prediction." This means that the player in the dominate position behaved more fairly then they needed to. Given that finding I think this would be a better titile: "Hierarchy is Not as Detrimental for Human Cooperation as You Might Expect"

rewqfdsa 11y ago
> The task was designed to produce Nash equilibria that would fit story they wanted to tell. Unfortunately, this kind of malarkey is common in the social sciences today. In fact, more than half of the results are non-reproducible[1][2]. Whether published in Nature or a lesser journal, the current research climate forces me to treat social science results as noise, especially when the results happen to fit one of the major ideologies currently vying for political domination. Sure, this heuristic is unfair to well-designed, dispassionate studies, but since I'm not qualified to evaluate the merits of each study, I have to make conservative assumptions. [1] http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/18/whats-to-be-done-about-the-reproducibility-crisis-in-the-social-sciences/ http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/18/whats-to-be-done-abou... [2] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-repl...
- noobermin 11y ago
  >Whether published in Nature or a lesser journal That's upsetting. Nature is usually quite the stamp of approval. I have some acquaintances who have critical views of Nature, but they dare doubt the rigor of their publications.
zenogais 11y ago
They rediscovered what Nietzsche wrote about 100+ years ago. High-ranking individuals in any society cooperate with each other more readily than with lower ranked individuals (The Gay Science, Book 1 Aphorism 13 - and many others)
- wfo 11y ago
  "Rediscovering" 19-20th century philosophy and massaging data to fit it describes much of modern research psychology.
freshhawk 11y ago
"This means that the player in the dominate position behaved more fairly then they needed to" I'd be careful saying more than they "needed" to. If the dominant player had behaved only as fairly as the Nash prediction then human beings would not see that as fair. We all know this intuitively, and we know that other people know it, etc. As I understand it, modeling human behaviour in regards to reciprocity and judgements of fairness with game theory isn't particularly useful given that this is engaging our evolved behaviour as highly social animals. It's not my field so I could be completely wrong, but I am under the impression this is very well established.

rewqfdsa 11y ago

> The task was designed to produce Nash equilibria that would fit story they wanted to tell. Unfortunately, this kind of malarkey is common in the social sciences today. In fact, more than half of the results are non-reproducible[1][2]. Whether published in Nature or a lesser journal, the current research climate forces me to treat social science results as noise, especially when the results happen to fit one of the major ideologies currently vying for political domination. Sure, this heuristic is unfair to well-designed, dispassionate studies, but since I'm not qualified to evaluate the merits of each study, I have to make conservative assumptions. [1] http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/18/whats-to-be-done-about-the-reproducibility-crisis-in-the-social-sciences/ http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/18/whats-to-be-done-abou... [2] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-repl...

noobermin 11y ago
>Whether published in Nature or a lesser journal That's upsetting. Nature is usually quite the stamp of approval. I have some acquaintances who have critical views of Nature, but they dare doubt the rigor of their publications.

zenogais 11y ago

They rediscovered what Nietzsche wrote about 100+ years ago. High-ranking individuals in any society cooperate with each other more readily than with lower ranked individuals (The Gay Science, Book 1 Aphorism 13 - and many others)

wfo 11y ago
"Rediscovering" 19-20th century philosophy and massaging data to fit it describes much of modern research psychology.

freshhawk 11y ago

"This means that the player in the dominate position behaved more fairly then they needed to" I'd be careful saying more than they "needed" to. If the dominant player had behaved only as fairly as the Nash prediction then human beings would not see that as fair. We all know this intuitively, and we know that other people know it, etc. As I understand it, modeling human behaviour in regards to reciprocity and judgements of fairness with game theory isn't particularly useful given that this is engaging our evolved behaviour as highly social animals. It's not my field so I could be completely wrong, but I am under the impression this is very well established.