4 ms·

There's a famous psychological experiment where people are split into pairs and given a pot of cash to share. One person decides how it should be apportioned, a

There's a famous psychological experiment where people are split into pairs and given a pot of cash to share. One person decides how it should be apportioned, and the other decides whether to accept that share. If they reject it, neither person receives any money. The logical decision is to always accept the money, because a small amount is still better than nothing. However people don't do that. At a certain point, the desire to punish unfairness outweighs the desire for the money, and people will reject money in order to prevent the unfair person getting anything either.

faeyanpiraat 5y ago
Is there a task beforehand where participants could potentially do more/less perceived work than their pairs?
watwut 5y ago
On repeated version of game, it pays off to reject unequal deal. So that the other person is incentivized to offer more. So apparently, the desire to punish feeling is optimizing our behavior for repeated game. Pls, if we are competing in some sense, say socially, then it is better for you to prevent advancement of person you are competing with.
ZephyrBlu 5y ago
> The logical decision is to always accept the money, because a small amount is still better than nothing This is a moral decision for me, not a logical one. Someone trying to make you accept an unequal portion is 100% trying to take advantage of you. The only situation I would accept an unequal share is if the portion was significant enough for the fact that it's unequal to not matter.
- sneak 5y ago
  Morally you are entitled to zero, so it's still a good deal to take whatever you are offered. It's not like you both did an equal amount of work. You're not being taken advantage of.
  - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
    Which is exactly why I'm comfortable turning it down if it's not equal. I didn't lose anything. Neither person did any work so I don't understand your point. Why would you offer someone less than half the money when you are no more entitled to it than them? The only reasons I can think of is to take advantage of them settling for less, or because you think you are entitled to more money. Both of which are morally wrong to me.
    - 317070 5y ago
      You write as if "equal" is the objective correct way to distribute. It is a really fun experiment which they replicated in different cultures and got vastly different results. Even both extremes of the spectrum are good ways to describe expected behaviour in some cultures. In some places, the first person would take all the money, and the second would happily accept that split. He could have been first after all and would have done the same thing. In other places, the first person would give everything to the second, who would still reject this split. Neither wants to receive money 'undeserved' by being lucky in getting first or second. All participants would describe their local approach as fair, despite the split definitely not being equal.
      - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
        I'm explicitly writing from my own moral perspective, which is obviously highly subjective. I also purposefully didn't use the word "fair" because it's very subjective. It would definitely be interesting to see the result of this experiment in different cultures. Any sources?

faeyanpiraat 5y ago

Is there a task beforehand where participants could potentially do more/less perceived work than their pairs?

watwut 5y ago

On repeated version of game, it pays off to reject unequal deal. So that the other person is incentivized to offer more. So apparently, the desire to punish feeling is optimizing our behavior for repeated game. Pls, if we are competing in some sense, say socially, then it is better for you to prevent advancement of person you are competing with.

ZephyrBlu 5y ago

> The logical decision is to always accept the money, because a small amount is still better than nothing This is a moral decision for me, not a logical one. Someone trying to make you accept an unequal portion is 100% trying to take advantage of you. The only situation I would accept an unequal share is if the portion was significant enough for the fact that it's unequal to not matter.

sneak 5y ago
Morally you are entitled to zero, so it's still a good deal to take whatever you are offered. It's not like you both did an equal amount of work. You're not being taken advantage of.
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  Which is exactly why I'm comfortable turning it down if it's not equal. I didn't lose anything. Neither person did any work so I don't understand your point. Why would you offer someone less than half the money when you are no more entitled to it than them? The only reasons I can think of is to take advantage of them settling for less, or because you think you are entitled to more money. Both of which are morally wrong to me.
  - 317070 5y ago
    You write as if "equal" is the objective correct way to distribute. It is a really fun experiment which they replicated in different cultures and got vastly different results. Even both extremes of the spectrum are good ways to describe expected behaviour in some cultures. In some places, the first person would take all the money, and the second would happily accept that split. He could have been first after all and would have done the same thing. In other places, the first person would give everything to the second, who would still reject this split. Neither wants to receive money 'undeserved' by being lucky in getting first or second. All participants would describe their local approach as fair, despite the split definitely not being equal.
    - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
      I'm explicitly writing from my own moral perspective, which is obviously highly subjective. I also purposefully didn't use the word "fair" because it's very subjective. It would definitely be interesting to see the result of this experiment in different cultures. Any sources?