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]

[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.

[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.

[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 ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got all that from the article in the newspaper?
Do you ever look more in depth before you say things like this? (based on our earlier debates on race and IQ, I'd say no)

[ 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 ]

And you're sure of this because...

[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

[Darryl_P]

Good article. It looks to be a major blow to the "more is always better than less" assumption that AC theory is based on. I don't see why it's irrational to reject the smaller offers, though, as the authors seem to be claiming.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why it's irrational to reject the smaller offers, though, as the authors seem to be claiming.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a one-time situation with a stranger, declining any offer is a loss with no downstream benefits.
If this was a situation in our social group (and extended) where it would influence later actions and treatment then declining has implied gains.
Declining in this case has our mind confusing the actual situation with our normal situation and is irrational. ??

luckyme

[hmkpoker]

Hijack time.

Rduke:

How, in your opinion, should this discovery be applied? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]