Nice little article introducing neuro-economics

[Rduke55]

I started talking about this last week and just saw this popular media article:

Linky

[hmkpoker]

Declining in the ultimatum game may not be as irrational as the article suggests. In the short run, it is clearly -EV, however if you were to play an iterated version, punishing small offers would certainly be necessary to maximize one's expected value. Considering that we seem to have evolved mechanisms for reciprocation in the prisoner's dilemma, this seems like an extension of that; however, when viewed in a single iteration (which is unnatural and uncommon for us, considering that the social circumstances where we would apply such behavior are almost never singular), it appears irrational.

As always, great article, please post more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Rduke55]

Absolutely.
The most interesting aspects of it for me (I haven't found many writings available to the public) are some of the examples where decisions made are actually suboptimal b/c of the difference between our current environment and the environment they evolved in. I saw a great talk on this a couple of months ago, so I'll try and find something rather than mangle my way through it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Declining in the ultimatum game may not be as irrational as the article suggests. In the short run, it is clearly -EV, however if you were to play an iterated version, punishing small offers would certainly be necessary to maximize one's expected value. Considering that we seem to have evolved mechanisms for reciprocation in the prisoner's dilemma, this seems like an extension of that; however, when viewed in a single iteration (which is unnatural and uncommon for us, considering that the social circumstances where we would apply such behavior are almost never singular), it appears irrational.

As always, great article, please post more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't know if anyone is interest in the unhijacked thread but this idea of a single iteration is mistaken. Even if we play the game only once its not irrational to offer a fairly generous split and turn down a derisory offer.

Effectively for humans there are no single iteration scenarios. Its all just more of the same.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know if anyone is interest in the unhijacked thread but this idea of a single iteration is mistaken. Even if we play the game only once its not irrational to offer a fairly generous split and turn down a derisory offer.

Effectively for humans there are no single iteration scenarios. Its all just more of the same.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Two hands reach out from a curtain, voice says, "please take one or the other, no strings attached". One hand has $.001 and the other has $1. why should I to take the $.001?

The curtain opens. Bill Gates is standing beside Warren. Warren tells me, "if you take the $1 I'll give $9 to Bill, otherwise he gets nothing." I should take the $.001 for what reason?

It's tough to do these experiments in the necessary blind setting, but by keeping the money small and by dealing with strangers it comes close enough in the original. If we increase the amount to $10 Million to split, not too many people would turn down $1Million to 'teach that SOB a lesson' or whatever emotion is pulling the strings.

The original is trying to test the other end of that spectrum, where the amount is not very significant and we have no reason to favor one stranger over the other. I can understand the rationality of offering a decent split, but if I turn down free money with no strings I know in my case it'd be an fu response not a rational one.
"I'll be better off doing this.".."the world will be better off if I do this" doesn't seem to apply.

"Effectively , for humans there are no single iterations" .. seems a hi-falootin way of covering up emotionalism. ??

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Effectively , for humans there are no single iterations" .. seems a hi-falootin way of covering up emotionalism. ??

[/ QUOTE ]
Who's trying to cover it up? Most humans are emotional and its illogical to ignore that when we make decisions. I'm trying to get the non-math phobics to stop being so irrational.

If I try to cut a cake in half and chose who gets the biggest bit then you do.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Effectively , for humans there are no single iterations" .. seems a hi-falootin way of covering up emotionalism. ??

[/ QUOTE ]
Who's trying to cover it up? Most humans are emotional and its illogical to ignore that when we make decisions. I'm trying to get the non-math phobics to stop being so irrational.

If I try to cut a cake in half and chose who gets the biggest bit then you do.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you looking at a different level? Of course his action ( saying 'stuff it, you prk) is rational from my outside view...the researcher. Just as the bird flying away when I open the door is rational, or hortense jumping when I grab him from behind. But at the Hortense level, it's an emotional decision not a rational one. When he jumps up and puts his head thru the glass and loses an eye, I don't think he'll claim.."hey, that was a well thought out, reasoned, heck, even rational response I came up with".

Sure, in the big picture our instinctive actions 'make sense' but they can be ludicrously stupid one-by-one case-specific. Well, they don't even qualify as stupid because they aren't formed by intelligence/non-intelligence, we simply pull our hand back from the fire because it has usually been the right thing to do and it's automatic.
Saying 'stuff it' is in that league.

luckyme

[Phil153]

Pure nonsense masquerading as science. They take very broad results and making ridiculously specific claims which are not supported by the evidence. This is very common in psychology and neurology.

As for people rejecting free money, it has more to do with avoiding the emotional and social obligations it imposes than brain wiring for game theory.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

As for people rejecting free money, it has more to do with avoiding the emotional and social obligations it imposes than brain wiring for game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

As for sex, it has more to do with feeling the orgasmic pleasure of getting laid than brain wiring for reproduction and survival.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As for people rejecting free money, it has more to do with avoiding the emotional and social obligations it imposes than brain wiring for game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

As for sex, it has more to do with feeling the orgasmic pleasure of getting laid than brain wiring for reproduction and survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

NFH