6 ms·
> Among the Machiguenga, word quickly spread of the young, square-jawed visitor from America giving away money. I get the sense they tested the game with (for
by smelendez 14y ago
> Among the Machiguenga, word quickly spread of the young, square-jawed visitor from America giving away money.
I get the sense they tested the game with (for the local economy) large amounts of money in small towns, where participants probably already knew each other.
That's a very different scenario than most American iterations I've known of the game, with college students who probably don't know each other playing for relatively small amounts of money.
Nickle-and-diming your random classmate out of 10 cents is very different from taking a week's pay that could have gone to your neighbor.
- reinhardt 14y agoMy first thought as well. I for one would have no qualms with accepting a scandalously unfair 10% of a $10M amount in cash.
- learc83 14y agoAccording to the article the participates remain anonymous to each other.
- marshray 14y agoAnonymous, but still within a relatively small group. There was also another party in the game whose identity was known well enough: word quickly spread of the young, square-jawed visitor from America giving away money
- noahth 14y agoI believe part of GP's point is that, for some sizes of village, there may not be any chance that your counterpart is a stranger. If your counterpart is not a stranger, even if you don't know their exact identity, you might choose to play more generously.
- vacri 14y agoThe Machiguenga had traditionally been horticulturalists who lived in single-family, thatch-roofed houses in small hamlets composed of clusters of extended families. You're saying the family would never talk about this strange newcomer and his odd games and what he got me to do?
- marshray 14y agoI reckon the Machiguenga know all the ways to suck in an anthropologist by now.
- vacri 14y agoIs there actually research of the same game being played amongst a group of poor Americans? Sure, with trivial numbers in a lab. But going to a poor neighbourhood and playing with money equal to a week's wages?
- marshray 14y agoI would not recommend "going to a poor neighborhood in America" and trying to run such a game. It would quite likely be illegal.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- rthomas6 14y agoWhy?
- marshray 14y agoPoor neighborhoods, especially urban ones, get pretty familiar with scams and money games. This is that "cultural inheritance" the authors are talking about. This is not a zero-sum game for the neighborhood. So if you don't conduct the study quickly, you risk the participants identifying each other and agreeing to collaborate to extract the maximum possible gain from the outsider. On the other hand, if you plan to show up and run the game quickly, you'll need to have a lot of cash on hand to pay out. (You are paying out on-the-spot, aren't you?) You're going to risk drawing a crowd. The police will likely take an interest in what's drawing the crowd and this scheme will look a whole lot like gambling.
- vacri 14y agoOr you could perhaps go to the police first and tell them what you're doing. There's nothing sinister going on.
- 14y ago
- wisty 14y agoThat's not the point. The point is, different cultures had wildly different point that they saw as "fair". Hunter-gatherers might a large share - first in, best dressed, and the loser is content with picking over the carcass. Other societies (which emphasised gift-giving) would consider a 60% offer insultingly low. Americans saw 50% as fair.
- autarch 14y agoActually, the article says that the gift giving culture rejected 60% because it would entail a future obligation to the giver.