3 ms·

> Is it rational in an homo economicus kind of way? Nope. I disagree. It's not rational if you view it as a single transaction ever, but at the moment you beg

> Is it rational in an homo economicus kind of way? Nope. I disagree. It's not rational if you view it as a single transaction ever, but at the moment you begin to think of the relationship as an iterated game of possible transactions, punishing the other party at a cost to yourself can change their future behavior and advantage you over the long run. So what you're arguing doesn't make sense in a single transaction is actually a good strategy in the iterated environment that the market actually is. Example: if there's a correlation between you turning down their offer and them making you a better offer in the future, turning down offers in an iterated version of the game you commented on becomes a viable strategy and even rational in some situations.

harryh 12y ago
Ya. It turns out that even in these games where the person running the experiment tells the participants that there will only be one iteration it doesn't change the results any. That being said I pretty much agree with you. An experiment with a single iteration is very unlike the real world so it's no surprise that participants pretty much ignore that directive.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  Even in the case that the game is a single iteration, it doesn't erase the background fact that society still exists and that punishing people for breaking societal norms can enforce societal norms of fairness. The experiment doesn't control for the fact that even though it's an isolated game, it's still happening in the context of these people being members of society and hence trying to enforce societal norms even in the game. Society is a large pool of random encounters over and over, so the players are making the correct play given that there's no control of that factor, ie, it's not truly a stand alone game. I find a lot of the analysis of these games from psychologists leave out details like that which make the responses move from irrational to rational.
  - harryh 12y ago
    Ya, my thinking here is exactly the same as yours.

harryh 12y ago

Ya. It turns out that even in these games where the person running the experiment tells the participants that there will only be one iteration it doesn't change the results any. That being said I pretty much agree with you. An experiment with a single iteration is very unlike the real world so it's no surprise that participants pretty much ignore that directive.

ObviousScience 12y ago
Even in the case that the game is a single iteration, it doesn't erase the background fact that society still exists and that punishing people for breaking societal norms can enforce societal norms of fairness. The experiment doesn't control for the fact that even though it's an isolated game, it's still happening in the context of these people being members of society and hence trying to enforce societal norms even in the game. Society is a large pool of random encounters over and over, so the players are making the correct play given that there's no control of that factor, ie, it's not truly a stand alone game. I find a lot of the analysis of these games from psychologists leave out details like that which make the responses move from irrational to rational.
- harryh 12y ago
  Ya, my thinking here is exactly the same as yours.