we are born selfish, how many children had to be taught not to share their toys? we have to learn to share, albeit it should be voluntary and not under pressure. this world doesn't teach love of God and love of neighbor, it encourages that seflish leaning we all have to grow until it leads to the world we have today. when one fears god properly, then abuse of power, whatever form it takes doesn't happen. works from the top down. it 's me me me. but when has this ever led to a peaceful world?
The reason people are altruistic in List's experiments in the first place is because they are GIVEN the money for nothing.
I guarantee that as soon as the lab rats had to EARN that $10, they would have not been willing to give any money away.
As for his final results in which, when the opportunity was there, people could steal up to $10; Again, they assume that the person in the other room is GIVEN the $10 for you to steal off them, not earned.
@Gozza0000 In the book, "Superfreakonomics," they actually did research under that circumstance. Sure enough, people are much less willing to give up what they feel they have earned.
@EZ2anger Yes I've read Superfreakonomics and their research concluded with something very similar to what I believed; Basically that when people 'win' money, or are given it for essentially nothing, they don't have as much attachment to it as when they earned it through wages.
Think of the multitude of game shows in which people essentially 'gamble' with money that they haven't earned (such as Deal or No Deal etc). These people wouldn't normally risk losing so many thousands of dollars.
@Gozza0000 Stole my comment you did. If you entered the room and the $10 was the ten you already had in your wallet, you'd not be so keen to give it away. You can't tell someone "this is yours" and have them believe it in that situation, because they know deep down that it isn't theirs.
@Gozza0000 Most psychological experiments have a payment for participating in the experiment. So the money is considered by the subject as something earned, but yes, it would improve the validity if follow up experiments if it used participant's job wages.
1) money addiction (single most effective dopamine trigger!!)
[Olds J, Milner P. (1954). "Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain". J Comp Physiol Psychol 47 (6): 41927.]
&
2) un(der)-diagnosed, tolerated and in Western Civilizations hugely honored antisocial personality disorder (ICD-10 / 3-6% male pop.), which destroys reciprocal altruism.
This is all rubbish. In the ultimatum game the results are complex and it's based on fear of having nothing at all.
In the dictator game, the result SHOULD be 0. It just should!!!
The only reason it's ever higher than zero is that the people being tested feel judged by other people. Extrapolate to real life and the whole world, and you get random charitable acts.
Weirdos, haters, ignoramuses, louts, loonies, and panderers. And that's just the people responding, never mind academics that often over think in ivory towers never coming down from their Island of Laputa to see how the real world works. We certainly won't be saved in intellect, with so much missing and mis-managed.
I think the difference in the scenarios is that in the first one you the person with the $ thinks the other guy has nothing and so might feel bad for him. In the next scenario you learn that the other guy is not broke, so you don't feel so bad for him. Then when he has the same amount as you... well, then why would you give him any of yours? and who knows... maybe he even has more, so it's fair to take a tiny bit from him just in case!
Wow. A lot of people seem to be really missing the point on this one. Not only are they missing the point but they seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of scientific experiment. A model in an experiment deliberately isolates a few measurable variables in order to test a hypothesis. This in turn proves or disproves a narrow and clearly defined proposition. The researchers know it doesn't exactly replicate real life, it just offers an insight on behaviour under certain conditions.
But the assumption that this 'appearing to be a good person' doesn't extend to everyday life is also fallacious. Evolutionarily, that's where altruism comes from, and it is still economically and ethically important, even if that is its basis.
Typical academic bs. The experiment is not the real world where money is usually earned in some way. Also, the "dictators" likely assume that since the experimenters are giving them $10.00 to play with, likely they gave the other party $10, so taking that $10 is not stealing, it's all just a fantasy game. We really do have to cut the budgets of these useless experimenters, and allow them to learn in the market first hand.
@rh001YT the market needs to go. Money needs to go. The problems of the world comes from money. Money is fake. Has nothing to do with our earth's rotation, natural resources, mountains, ext. Time for an RBE.
There is a major flaw to the ultimatum and dictator experiments. The fact that participants knew that researches were watching them may have influenced their generosity.
I would recommend a watching of "Drive: The Truth about what Motivates us" instead.
The research is much better. Levitt-Dubner do not say who they are interviewing, what profile their audience is. "Drive" does!
While Levitt-Dubner talk about List experimenting out of the lab & in the "Real" World (what a giveaway!), actually their experiments are still controlled. Lab-like. In contrast Drive experimented across societies & countries, not in a lab!
I would recommend a watching of "Drive: The Truth about what Motivates us" instead.
The research is much better. Levitt-Dubner do not say who they are interviewing, what profile their audience is. "Drive" does!
While Levitt-Dubner talk about List experimenting out of the lab & in the "Real" World (what a giveaway!), actually their experiments are still controlled. Lab-like. In contrast "Drive" experimented across societies & countries, not in a lab!
Very interesting study -- I am sure someone more intelligent than myself could make a case against the approach to this research, but the results are interesting nonetheless.
This experiment does not include the element of survival. The decision being asked to be made does not have the same drivers as in real life. If you want to do this experiment, put a basket next to the community chest square on the Monopoly board and tell players they have the option to donate to whomever has the least amount of cash (not property) 30 plays from now.
yeah but what has changed, most of us in the american continent are related to some bad history, you cant change your genes and act like you dont have emotions or react to oportunity even if it means taking all from others, the only thing you can change is the present or the way your mind is or acts, the experiment showed one thing only, all we are is labrats for this money making experiment. nobody knows who we work for.
A quick look at human history reveals that this is not the case at all. Black and brown people are just as willing to take from each other as white people, and have been throughout history. Capitalism is a relatively recent, western invention, but the idea of taking from others of hoarding wealth for yourself is as old as human civilization. Some even claim that it is the entire basis for human civilization.
God I hate those self-indulgent douchebags in the crowd who think they're special or something for going against the grain. You wouldn't give all $10, you're just raising your hand and saying you would to try to separate yourselves from the "greedy masses" or something. Give me a break with your superiority complex bullshit.
Actually, I can believe that some people would give away the 10 dollars, if it was just "found money" (that is, they didn't feel they'd really earned it). However, I expect (don't have any data to support this, just a theory) that if you asked people to perform some menial task for their money, say, had them sweep and mop the floor of a small room and then gave them 20 bucks, that they'd be much less likely to give away that money. Those altruists wouldn't be so generous.
@buzzin1975 I accept your criticism with gratitude, but if you're still seeing the world in the color of skin, then you still have a lot to learn about humanity. There is no "us" and there is no "them," unless you classify it so in your own point of view. Your bigotry only excludes people who may help you to change your perspective, and those people quite often agree with you. Don't be racist. Take an economics course in the western hemisphere and tell me that I'm wrong. Then, we can talk. :)
@buzzin1975 I accept your criticism with gratitude, but if you're still seeing the word in the color of skin, then you still have a lot to learn about humanity. There is no "us" and there is no "them," unless you classify it so in your own point of view. Your bigotry only excludes people who may help you to change your perspective, and those people quite often agree with you. Don't be racist. Take an economics course in the western hemisphere and tell me that I'm wrong. Then, we can talk. :)
@lite1979 Fucker, I have a doctorate in finance from a top-tier university in the United States. My IQ is 162 on the Stanford-Binet scale. I left America because it's full of shit. As for "us" vs. "them", there is and always has been such a dichotomy. It's called the Gini coefficient. If there were no such thing as "us" vs. "them", why would there be such high levels of income inequality in the world, even for doing the same fucking job!
@buzzin1975 Nice language, doctor, and for being a genius, you need to be reminded that even rhetorical questions must end in a question mark. It's not like there's a time limit for comments; read what you write before you click "Post" next time. Finance and Economics are not the same thing, though. The reason someone in India gets paid $8 an hour to do the same programming my brother does for $22 an hour is simple supply and demand. There's a lot more programmers in India, but he's right here.
Don't forget, @everyone, to join the Zeitgeist Movement team in the Boinc program, aqua@home project, where you give your idle CPU process (the process that you do not use) towards research into quantum computing and other really cool science-based stuff.
TZM is really making some waves now. It only takes a short amount of time to do, and it feels great to contribute to science and the implementation of a Resource-Based Economy! :)
On the point of incentivization leading away from altruism, I can't in good faith believe these results reflect most people. There's only two kinds of people that would elect a negative value to give..
-Those in need (homeless etc)
-Bad people
I won't believe that the majority of people are either of these.
You're missing the point. When people are given the option of stealing from some one else, and they know they can do it with zero consequence (social, legal, personal health, etc), then they re assign the moral value of the options. When stealing a dollar is the absolute worst thing you can do, it's hard to rationalize it, but when stealing 10 dollars is the worst thing you can do, stealing one dollar doesn't seem so bad, so more people are willing to do it.
This experiment cannot possibly account for human nature because every one of its participants has been brought up under a paradigm of self-interest. We are conditioned from birth in to self-interest by just about every message on the TV, radio, in print, or otherwise.
The monetary system, which was born out of self-interest, in fact encourages more self-interest among those raised under it. We cannot evolve out of self-interest under a paradigm that continuously reinforces self-interest.
Surely in a real world act if you had EARNED your $10 you would keep it why should the other person take or recive your hard earned cash? That is why this experiment fails because if soneone GAVE me $10 i would share I mean its not mine unless I earned it they have the same rights to have the money as me.
Freakonomics is probably the most useless book I've ever pirated, it's a collection of talking points and politically correct analogies, offers nothing technical or theoretical and better yet, it's not even about economics! It was written by a couple of snake oil salesbitches.
@maugustyniak It is an excellent book that points out that economics is about much more than just some math equation. Snake Oil ??? ... they aren't "selling" anything
It's a shame that people get so hooked on this idea of altruism and whether what we do is motivated by self interest or if we are all a bunch of selfless givers. If we take for granted that we are all motivated by a greater or lesser degree of self interest, ...
...it is simply a case of creating a situation whereby we perceive that we are doing what's best for ourselves, and ourselves could just as much refer to you as an individual as it does to you as part of a community. It's all about how things are framed.
the motives behind 'altruism' : hope for reciprocation in the future, improving ones reputation amongst peers, pleasing God (eternal reward), personal pleasure, hope for 'good karma' (similar to the first motive but indirect) ... I used to believe in altruism but it seems that even the most naked, selfless motive behind it (pure pleasure from doing a deed that pleases others) seems, in the end, geared toward your own well-being.
The amount of money and its purchasing power must also surely be a huge factor, right? If the experimenter gave the test subjects a million dollars, I doubt that they would then go ahead and freely give up 50% of that figure to a stranger ($500,000). Instead, it's more likely that they would still give away a tiny amount (maybe even just that similar original figure, 10 bucks). The experiment is dealing with chump change and draws similar, narrowed results thereof.
People are generous and don't have to be forced to give away their money. But many people will respond to the economic incentive of the welfare state.
The Ultimatum Game REALLY whenever being considered has to also involve the cases where it was done cross culturally. The results are vastly different. Some cultures don't accept ANY offer no matter how large, as their social convention will always see the offer of charity as an insult and attempt to make them look bad by one up'ing them in their display of generosity. Others will accept ANY offer no matter the size as household autonomy is the convention, all offers are graciously accepted.
I'm finding this incredibly confusing. Its impossible to follow a conversation of multiple voices while reading some very quickly written words being scanned over by a quickly flitting camera. Its a disaster.
I'm finding this incredibly confusing. Its impossible to follow a conversation of multiple voices while reading some very quickly written words being scanned over by a quickly flitting camera. Its a disaster.
i know right? think about it, math class would be interesting, Shakespeare would be understandable, kids might take sex ed seriously. Learning this way would be awesome.
The Cartoonists hand is fine his body not fine. Zoom in blur is a problem, Moving the camera around too quickly is a problem especially when zoomed in with fast-forward. Drawing when nothing is being said is a problem. Shadows or shine on the board is a problem.
Solutions: Bigger drawings, better lighting, Pause for clear images and slightly angled camera angle so we can see the board instead of the sketchers back.
Yes but there were smarter people who made it very nice in their own favour. I will lend you the money you will give me back to me at any time you can and in compensation of my nearly altruistic gesture i'll take a small interest. Thats how altruistic are some people!!
LOL. Life is by definition not altruistic. Or else it goes extinct ASAP. Life is defined as bio-mass (and ideas) growing/improving/surviving. This growth, together with resource limits, creates natural selection. Which means that if you are altruistic, you give it away, and hence don’t survive, except to be useful “cattle” to some other life.
*Everyone*, even Mother Theresa, do *everything* they do, solely for their own interests. Either direct or indirect. Everything else is denial.
@Evi1M4chine Cool story but not rooted in fact. You need to check out the one on "Drive" in this series. Motivations aren't nearly that transparent. I think this simply shows that things are much more grey than people usually hope for. We want our world to be neatly packaged into a little truth like your own views that "People are all selfish". In reality, the world is a complex place and thus demands much more complex rules for things to be as they are, neither black nor white.
@Evi1M4chine Perhaps you should read Richard Dawkins, in particular The Selfish Gene. Altruism has been shown to be a major driving force in evolution by many researchers, and proves to be a much more stable and robust model than that of self-interest. See also The Prisoner's Dilemma and Bertrand Russell's role in post-war policies.
I agree, there's a problem here in the definition of altruism because the perception of what is and is not altruistic has to alter as the criteria change. So although these guys are right that there are other issues at work also (eg. how the subject wants to appear in front of the experimenter), the average participant's perception that they are doing the other person a favour is probably not that inconsistent. In a nutshell: people are more complex than economists will ever understand.
I would say that this experiment proves beyond reasonable doubt that, if you want a cooperative, peaceful society, dictatorship is a negative influence. When was there any dictator who wasn't, basically, a thief? We even talk about dictators in terms of 'stealing power'. Of course the most powerful dictatorships in the world today are the multinational corporations who run much like medieval city states.
I think seing if the person is a real person would help in the giving process.
Was it established if the other persons 10 dollars was their own personal money or if they had been given it for this experiment. I think under the circumstances of not knowing anything about the other person then you just take half of whatever the amount is, I think that is fair.
I think seing if the person is a real person would help in the giving process.
Was it established if the other persons 10 dollars was their own personal money or if they had been given it for this experiment. I think under the circumstances of not knowing anything about the other person then you just take half of whatever the amount is, I think that is fair.
....therefore, the argument that the participant's behavior is effected by the fact that he/she wants to appear "nice" still stands (and in my opinion, is a definate and underestimated factor at play here).
You have to take into account the mentality of the individual given the option to both take the other participants $10 and keep his/her own. This participant has the mind set that he/she is already in possession of the full $20 due to the fact that he/she has full authority over who receives it regardless of the fact that the other $10 is pysicaly in the other participants hand. Therefore "stealing" $3 is perceived by the participant as a gratuity of $7.....
yeah these guy's are way less impressive intellectuals than the guy who did 'the empathic civillization'. They are totally detatched from the ramifictions of these findings, indeed they seem smug to find that humans today are largely dodgy bastards. I'd like to know what their contention is apart from establishing that humans are greedy today. I mean it's good empirical evidence, but it's not exactly a surprise is it?
Very interesting video as it suggests our capacity for altruism depends either on the rules we give ourselves or, alternatively, – thinking developmentally, – would depend on a collective shift of paradigm, resulting in a changed subconscious “rule” we live by. – We sure have the capacity AND we have a struggle with it… I think it is misleading and does not do justice to the subject to think of it in terms of “are we - or are we not altruistic?” – It seems to be an option, hopefully..
Very interesting video, as it suggests our capacity for altruism depends either on the rules we give ourselves or, alternatively, – thinking developmentally, – would depend on a collective shift of paradigm, resulting in a changed subconscious “rule” we live by. – We sure have the capacity AND we have a struggle with it… I think it is misleading and does not do justice to the subject to think of it in terms of “are we - or are we not altruistic?” – It seems to be an option, hopefully.
This experiment seems far too simplistic and unrelated to the real life to me. The major problem with the setting is that people were allowed to decided what to do with money, which was given to them for FREE! Well, that's a massive difference, whether you find some money on the street and don't mind sharing it as opposed to having to EARN it first and then giving it away for nothing. Suggestion: Would be interesting to see, hot people reacted if they had to work to get the $10! Vote Up!
@rootesk33 I agree with you, but working for the money have to a degree, how much work did i put to get $ 10? If u worked a whole month and to earn $ 10 it's very different to someone who recieved free money or someone who earns 1 k per hour.
@rootesk33 They actually did this experiment They had the dictator and the subserviant each do some menial task (fill envolopes for another experiment) and then they had the students play the game and they found that the person was more likely to keep all of their money BUT not take the others' money. This finding suggests that when the dictator feels like another has worked for what they earned then the dictator is less likely to be greedy (take) but also far less likely to be altruistic (give)
@rootesk33 in the book they actually do what you say, the results are that people in general don't steal nor give money. I have no clue as to why that part isn't mentioned in this video.
@rootesk33 It doesn't appear as though you've watched the whole thing through. He's comparing the current teaching of economics to the approach demonstrated by the experiments. Economists are taught that all consumers are self-interested buyers who will maximize the utility of their dispensable incomes. He's saying that the experiments disprove this. He's not saying that we're altruistic by nature either, but that we tend to behave as a community when given the opportunity, giving and taking
@rootesk33 according to economics text books and assumption of diminishing marginal utility there should not be any difference and people should tend to chose more than less.
That's not the point of the experiment. The point is to conclude that people respond to their surroundings and the opportunity, so the same people can be 'giver' or 'stealer' depending on the opportunity. Now you have to have some imagination to see how that effects the real world.
So you might imagine that there's some percentage of people that voted up just because you told them to, not because they thought about the subject and came with their own opinion witch resembles yours.
@rootesk33 or perhaps a hundred thousand dollars? ten bucks is nothing, you cannot make any deductions about greed from ten bucks. What are the socio economic back grounds of the subjects? I would think poor people would come out looking greedier than a trustfundee.
@samvan27 Well, I am sure the poor person might be greedier for the $10 as compared to a trustfundee, but I will bet that the trustfundee will be equally as greedy if not more than the poor when it comes to $100,000. The rich get rich because they are greedy. They are no better than others.
That's actually false. A recent study from Berkeley showed that poor people are more altruistic than rich people by far. I can link you to it if you want. Poor people are more altruistic because they have more empathy and understanding of other's suffering.
Depends on how you measure "altruism." If you measure it by feeling empathy or sympathy, then yes, that's probably correct, but if altruism is measured by the size and scope of donations, number of charities, organized relief efforts and other "big" charitable projects, then the wealthy take the cake by a long shot.
This is not opinion that I am discussing. I appreciate your attempt at making a link between what you know and observe, but it's not going to be as significant as a published scientific study. There is empirical evidence that shows that rich people show less empathy and are less altruistic. If you want, I can send you the study. Just be connected to the internet through a library or college.
The question is thus: What's the problem with greed? Do you not work because you want a higher standard of living and to have more, better things? People have a strong tendency to equate desire for more things (greed) with outright theft from others, when this is simply not the case. Wanting to have more things and willing to work for them is in no way immoral, nor is even excessive greed, so long as the "greedy" people aren't stealing from or hurting others.
@rootesk33 Well you have the point, but if you give people 10$ and you give them the option to give that 10$ or even take 10$ from somebody else people will steal rather than give, and let me repeat they were given that 10$. That is what this example shows.
@rootesk33 Yes indeed, make people come in and do a task for half a day, and give them $10 for it, then this gives us two different scenarios. 1) The person next door hasn't done any work, will you give them some of your money? 2) The person next door has done the same work you have, but won't get paid for it unless you give them some. I think this new test 2 is a truer test for Altruism. And the "not-explainable-by-science" outlier from the original speech might finally keep his money in 1)
I think the biggest flaw with the these experiments is the fact that the participants are very aware that they are part of an experiment. I'd be very conscientiousness of my actions if I knew I was being observed. If you take the observers away, I'd argue that the lack of repercussions (fear of judgement) would lead to more selfish results.
@rootesk33 Money that is earned holds more value than money that is given to people. Your experiment would obviously show this influence of "hard work" vs "easy money". However, the experiment(s) in the video intentionally removes this influence so that it could focus purely on the altruistic behavior demonstrated by the participants. But I believe that merely letting the participants know that they were part of an experiment skews the results. Please see my earlier comment.
@rootesk33 in the book they talk about a case wear the two participants earn the money. then one is giving the power to give or take all th money and on average they do neither. so when they add they concept of earning they keeping everything the same they both get 10 dollars
@rootesk33 in the book, they explain how they go into the real world and see the same thing happening with people who earn their money etc.... thats what they were talking about with the dissonance between the lab and the real world.
Wonderful stuff, thank you. Please know that the volume on all of these RSA renditions are very low and hard to hear even with all my computers controls on max ( I have a lap top). Graet stuff, but a strain to hear. I hope you'll increase the volume.
Its one thing to give away a portion of something you got for free, its another thing to give away a portion of something for which you must work, which, to me, would have been a much more interesting experiment. How do people feel about income taxes that exceed the 30% they seem to feel altruistic enough to "give away" in this experiment? And what are these tax rates in major western countries? Hmm...
hey guys what type of drawing is this? how is it call?
olascoaga29 1 month ago
@olascoaga29 visual minutes
ilidanko 4 weeks ago
Lol he wrote swag on the thiefs bag
cooooookyyyyman 1 month ago
I'd be that outlier. Haha, science doesn't even understand me!
The camera this time though, so. annoying.
iwanttodanceallnight 1 month ago
we are born selfish, how many children had to be taught not to share their toys? we have to learn to share, albeit it should be voluntary and not under pressure. this world doesn't teach love of God and love of neighbor, it encourages that seflish leaning we all have to grow until it leads to the world we have today. when one fears god properly, then abuse of power, whatever form it takes doesn't happen. works from the top down. it 's me me me. but when has this ever led to a peaceful world?
TheRosa63 2 months ago
So human nature is conditional rather than static? Imagine the type of human nature that might result from a moral economic system.
IAmNotAeneas 2 months ago
Terrible sound, lighting, and camera work. So much for the efficiency of selfishness.
TheForwardGaze 2 months ago
Awesome video... one of the best of the RSA Animates.
marcdaddy33 3 months ago
They've missed something VERY critical here.
The reason people are altruistic in List's experiments in the first place is because they are GIVEN the money for nothing.
I guarantee that as soon as the lab rats had to EARN that $10, they would have not been willing to give any money away.
As for his final results in which, when the opportunity was there, people could steal up to $10; Again, they assume that the person in the other room is GIVEN the $10 for you to steal off them, not earned.
Gozza0000 4 months ago 21
@Gozza0000 In the book, "Superfreakonomics," they actually did research under that circumstance. Sure enough, people are much less willing to give up what they feel they have earned.
EZ2anger 2 months ago
@EZ2anger Yes I've read Superfreakonomics and their research concluded with something very similar to what I believed; Basically that when people 'win' money, or are given it for essentially nothing, they don't have as much attachment to it as when they earned it through wages.
Think of the multitude of game shows in which people essentially 'gamble' with money that they haven't earned (such as Deal or No Deal etc). These people wouldn't normally risk losing so many thousands of dollars.
Gozza0000 2 months ago
@Gozza0000
A very good point.
the81kid 2 months ago
@Gozza0000 Stole my comment you did. If you entered the room and the $10 was the ten you already had in your wallet, you'd not be so keen to give it away. You can't tell someone "this is yours" and have them believe it in that situation, because they know deep down that it isn't theirs.
Datelesswonders 2 months ago in playlist More videos from theRSAorg
@Gozza0000 Most psychological experiments have a payment for participating in the experiment. So the money is considered by the subject as something earned, but yes, it would improve the validity if follow up experiments if it used participant's job wages.
DarkenedYeastExtract 4 weeks ago
Today’s problems:
1) money addiction (single most effective dopamine trigger!!)
[Olds J, Milner P. (1954). "Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain". J Comp Physiol Psychol 47 (6): 41927.]
&
2) un(der)-diagnosed, tolerated and in Western Civilizations hugely honored antisocial personality disorder (ICD-10 / 3-6% male pop.), which destroys reciprocal altruism.
Tressco 4 months ago
I like the RSA Animate clips, but I miss a conclusion or implications to this one, even though it's interesting.
mouse150888 4 months ago
This is all rubbish. In the ultimatum game the results are complex and it's based on fear of having nothing at all.
In the dictator game, the result SHOULD be 0. It just should!!!
The only reason it's ever higher than zero is that the people being tested feel judged by other people. Extrapolate to real life and the whole world, and you get random charitable acts.
valdez87 5 months ago
@valdez87 Do not project your individualist, selfish, and, in the end, inefficient personality traits on the world.
ipwnorcs 3 months ago
@ipwnorcs That's the most awesome reply I've ever had :) congrats!
valdez87 3 months ago
Weirdos, haters, ignoramuses, louts, loonies, and panderers. And that's just the people responding, never mind academics that often over think in ivory towers never coming down from their Island of Laputa to see how the real world works. We certainly won't be saved in intellect, with so much missing and mis-managed.
probrojeffro 5 months ago
the larger point seems to be missed...that it's all about framing
debaser71 5 months ago
I think the difference in the scenarios is that in the first one you the person with the $ thinks the other guy has nothing and so might feel bad for him. In the next scenario you learn that the other guy is not broke, so you don't feel so bad for him. Then when he has the same amount as you... well, then why would you give him any of yours? and who knows... maybe he even has more, so it's fair to take a tiny bit from him just in case!
morningucsc 5 months ago 2
Where have you guys been all my life.....
I love all of your presentations you make the most boring things SO entertaining and interesting
SkatedotSaint 5 months ago
Wow. A lot of people seem to be really missing the point on this one. Not only are they missing the point but they seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of scientific experiment. A model in an experiment deliberately isolates a few measurable variables in order to test a hypothesis. This in turn proves or disproves a narrow and clearly defined proposition. The researchers know it doesn't exactly replicate real life, it just offers an insight on behaviour under certain conditions.
John37001 5 months ago in playlist RSA Animates
i decided to subscrfibe cause it would look bad to win the awesome competition without subscribing first -- superfreak is a very good econimist
daydreams4rock 6 months ago
But the assumption that this 'appearing to be a good person' doesn't extend to everyday life is also fallacious. Evolutionarily, that's where altruism comes from, and it is still economically and ethically important, even if that is its basis.
Heligoland43 6 months ago
Comment removed
sirmoglok 6 months ago
Typical academic bs. The experiment is not the real world where money is usually earned in some way. Also, the "dictators" likely assume that since the experimenters are giving them $10.00 to play with, likely they gave the other party $10, so taking that $10 is not stealing, it's all just a fantasy game. We really do have to cut the budgets of these useless experimenters, and allow them to learn in the market first hand.
rh001YT 7 months ago
@rh001YT the market needs to go. Money needs to go. The problems of the world comes from money. Money is fake. Has nothing to do with our earth's rotation, natural resources, mountains, ext. Time for an RBE.
benandreas369 6 months ago
all this is saying is that humans are really selfish!!
dumassdslxc 7 months ago
The ultimatum game ignores things like opportunity cost and risk. The dictator game appears to be inconclusive.
hallavast 7 months ago
There is a major flaw to the ultimatum and dictator experiments. The fact that participants knew that researches were watching them may have influenced their generosity.
johndoe77774444 7 months ago
The economy is alright with meeeeeeeee
manrayer88 7 months ago
I would recommend a watching of "Drive: The Truth about what Motivates us" instead.
The research is much better. Levitt-Dubner do not say who they are interviewing, what profile their audience is. "Drive" does!
While Levitt-Dubner talk about List experimenting out of the lab & in the "Real" World (what a giveaway!), actually their experiments are still controlled. Lab-like. In contrast Drive experimented across societies & countries, not in a lab!
I think this is a motivated piece of research
yehbheekarrlo 8 months ago
I would recommend a watching of "Drive: The Truth about what Motivates us" instead.
The research is much better. Levitt-Dubner do not say who they are interviewing, what profile their audience is. "Drive" does!
While Levitt-Dubner talk about List experimenting out of the lab & in the "Real" World (what a giveaway!), actually their experiments are still controlled. Lab-like. In contrast "Drive" experimented across societies & countries, not in a lab!
I think this is a motivated piece of research.
yehbheekarrlo 8 months ago
I enoy the animation, as all the other RSAnimation, but the zooming in and out is really distracting. A steady camera is better.
forensicdrew 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
hcgdiets0 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
truehealthyproducts 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 8 months ago
Very interesting study -- I am sure someone more intelligent than myself could make a case against the approach to this research, but the results are interesting nonetheless.
HistoryLubber 9 months ago
This experiment does not include the element of survival. The decision being asked to be made does not have the same drivers as in real life. If you want to do this experiment, put a basket next to the community chest square on the Monopoly board and tell players they have the option to donate to whomever has the least amount of cash (not property) 30 plays from now.
somodatmedia 9 months ago
she's all right
she's all right
The girls all right with me
manrayer88 9 months ago
can he shave his hairy hands :P
jacksone1129 10 months ago
yeah but what has changed, most of us in the american continent are related to some bad history, you cant change your genes and act like you dont have emotions or react to oportunity even if it means taking all from others, the only thing you can change is the present or the way your mind is or acts, the experiment showed one thing only, all we are is labrats for this money making experiment. nobody knows who we work for.
chukaz1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
TheNitricOxide 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 10 months ago
@buzzin1975
A quick look at human history reveals that this is not the case at all. Black and brown people are just as willing to take from each other as white people, and have been throughout history. Capitalism is a relatively recent, western invention, but the idea of taking from others of hoarding wealth for yourself is as old as human civilization. Some even claim that it is the entire basis for human civilization.
Wintermutate 10 months ago
This video is good.
QJosephP 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come visit my channel!
850Nexus 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come visit my channel!
StrikeTsunami 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
siteforonemillion com - advertise yourself or your business!!!
siteforonemillion 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
siteforonemillion com - advertise yourself or your business
siteforonemillion 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
siteforonemillion com - advertise yourself or your business
siteforonemillion 10 months ago
God I hate those self-indulgent douchebags in the crowd who think they're special or something for going against the grain. You wouldn't give all $10, you're just raising your hand and saying you would to try to separate yourselves from the "greedy masses" or something. Give me a break with your superiority complex bullshit.
youR3tard 10 months ago
@youR3tard
Actually, I can believe that some people would give away the 10 dollars, if it was just "found money" (that is, they didn't feel they'd really earned it). However, I expect (don't have any data to support this, just a theory) that if you asked people to perform some menial task for their money, say, had them sweep and mop the floor of a small room and then gave them 20 bucks, that they'd be much less likely to give away that money. Those altruists wouldn't be so generous.
Wintermutate 10 months ago
@buzzin1975 I accept your criticism with gratitude, but if you're still seeing the world in the color of skin, then you still have a lot to learn about humanity. There is no "us" and there is no "them," unless you classify it so in your own point of view. Your bigotry only excludes people who may help you to change your perspective, and those people quite often agree with you. Don't be racist. Take an economics course in the western hemisphere and tell me that I'm wrong. Then, we can talk. :)
lite1979 10 months ago
@buzzin1975 I accept your criticism with gratitude, but if you're still seeing the word in the color of skin, then you still have a lot to learn about humanity. There is no "us" and there is no "them," unless you classify it so in your own point of view. Your bigotry only excludes people who may help you to change your perspective, and those people quite often agree with you. Don't be racist. Take an economics course in the western hemisphere and tell me that I'm wrong. Then, we can talk. :)
lite1979 10 months ago
@lite1979 Fucker, I have a doctorate in finance from a top-tier university in the United States. My IQ is 162 on the Stanford-Binet scale. I left America because it's full of shit. As for "us" vs. "them", there is and always has been such a dichotomy. It's called the Gini coefficient. If there were no such thing as "us" vs. "them", why would there be such high levels of income inequality in the world, even for doing the same fucking job!
buzzin1975 10 months ago
@buzzin1975 Nice language, doctor, and for being a genius, you need to be reminded that even rhetorical questions must end in a question mark. It's not like there's a time limit for comments; read what you write before you click "Post" next time. Finance and Economics are not the same thing, though. The reason someone in India gets paid $8 an hour to do the same programming my brother does for $22 an hour is simple supply and demand. There's a lot more programmers in India, but he's right here.
lite1979 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't forget, @everyone, to join the Zeitgeist Movement team in the Boinc program, aqua@home project, where you give your idle CPU process (the process that you do not use) towards research into quantum computing and other really cool science-based stuff.
TZM is really making some waves now. It only takes a short amount of time to do, and it feels great to contribute to science and the implementation of a Resource-Based Economy! :)
For the sake of humankind!
alexbarabas 11 months ago
9:54 Swag! lol
JrockTheGreat 11 months ago
@JrockTheGreat
hahahah I know
youR3tard 10 months ago
On the point of incentivization leading away from altruism, I can't in good faith believe these results reflect most people. There's only two kinds of people that would elect a negative value to give..
-Those in need (homeless etc)
-Bad people
I won't believe that the majority of people are either of these.
goodolarchie 11 months ago
@goodolarchie you've basically rejected factual findings because of a moral judgement, not cool, not cool
noobler9 10 months ago
@goodolarchie or the completely dissatisfied people that are NOT bad.
89Valkyrie 10 months ago
@goodolarchie
You're missing the point. When people are given the option of stealing from some one else, and they know they can do it with zero consequence (social, legal, personal health, etc), then they re assign the moral value of the options. When stealing a dollar is the absolute worst thing you can do, it's hard to rationalize it, but when stealing 10 dollars is the worst thing you can do, stealing one dollar doesn't seem so bad, so more people are willing to do it.
Wintermutate 10 months ago
This experiment cannot possibly account for human nature because every one of its participants has been brought up under a paradigm of self-interest. We are conditioned from birth in to self-interest by just about every message on the TV, radio, in print, or otherwise.
The monetary system, which was born out of self-interest, in fact encourages more self-interest among those raised under it. We cannot evolve out of self-interest under a paradigm that continuously reinforces self-interest.
ddpsp 11 months ago 16
@ddpsp Which is why the monetary system has to go if we want to evolve further than our own nuclear demise!
benjaamin8 2 months ago 5
@benjaamin8 If there was no monetary system then nothing would ever develop, everything would decline and there'd be havoc
KingKael00 1 month ago
@ddpsp self-fulfilling prophecy.
Pazrayna 1 month ago
rsa videos are great, freakanomics was a great movie, but whoever was the cameraman for this video should be slapped.
gendissaray 11 months ago 3
Surely in a real world act if you had EARNED your $10 you would keep it why should the other person take or recive your hard earned cash? That is why this experiment fails because if soneone GAVE me $10 i would share I mean its not mine unless I earned it they have the same rights to have the money as me.
thevideovan 11 months ago
that's a stupid experiment. why would anyone give to the person in the other room if they have no idea wither the person needs it or not.
WildMeemz 11 months ago
Freakonomics is probably the most useless book I've ever pirated, it's a collection of talking points and politically correct analogies, offers nothing technical or theoretical and better yet, it's not even about economics! It was written by a couple of snake oil salesbitches.
maugustyniak 1 year ago
@maugustyniak It is an excellent book that points out that economics is about much more than just some math equation. Snake Oil ??? ... they aren't "selling" anything
WolfProf 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ZEITGEIST MOVING FORWARD
MidwinterSon 1 year ago
Why would people steal 10 dollars? Not worth the guilt.
andrizky 1 year ago
WORKING ON WORLD TRUE DEMOCRACY W/O SPECIAL INTERESTS OR CORPORATE INFLUENCE. BASED ON REASON
jorgedude888 1 year ago
WORKING ON WORLD TRUE DEMOCRACY W/O SPECIAL INTERESTS OR CORPORATE INFLUENCE BASED ON REASON
jorgedude888 1 year ago
People who were giving in the anonymous situation have the incentive of appearing altruistic to the experimenter. There is no altruism.
sagebombed 1 year ago
The animations is not in sync as it in other videos.
velja27 1 year ago
i could do without the screech at the beginning....makes me wanna punch my ears
rosskstar 1 year ago
It is the greed for power that has destroyed the idea of commerce...or did it create it?
SusannaMrsBMomEtc 1 year ago
This animation is very shaky and confusing, I still like the concept :).
sjuurd 1 year ago
It's a shame that people get so hooked on this idea of altruism and whether what we do is motivated by self interest or if we are all a bunch of selfless givers. If we take for granted that we are all motivated by a greater or lesser degree of self interest, ...
Schniddo 1 year ago
...it is simply a case of creating a situation whereby we perceive that we are doing what's best for ourselves, and ourselves could just as much refer to you as an individual as it does to you as part of a community. It's all about how things are framed.
Schniddo 1 year ago 2
lol more interested in this, than sex
garfilo2 1 year ago
Yes, I do everything I do for selfish reasons. No, I am not particularly bothered by this.
quintopia 1 year ago
the motives behind 'altruism' : hope for reciprocation in the future, improving ones reputation amongst peers, pleasing God (eternal reward), personal pleasure, hope for 'good karma' (similar to the first motive but indirect) ... I used to believe in altruism but it seems that even the most naked, selfless motive behind it (pure pleasure from doing a deed that pleases others) seems, in the end, geared toward your own well-being.
ringawing 1 year ago
@ringawing But there will always be an exception to this altruistic motives theory as well.
tenoh27 9 months ago
The amount of money and its purchasing power must also surely be a huge factor, right? If the experimenter gave the test subjects a million dollars, I doubt that they would then go ahead and freely give up 50% of that figure to a stranger ($500,000). Instead, it's more likely that they would still give away a tiny amount (maybe even just that similar original figure, 10 bucks). The experiment is dealing with chump change and draws similar, narrowed results thereof.
roryhawk 1 year ago
People are generous and don't have to be forced to give away their money. But many people will respond to the economic incentive of the welfare state.
glibgirl 1 year ago
The Ultimatum Game REALLY whenever being considered has to also involve the cases where it was done cross culturally. The results are vastly different. Some cultures don't accept ANY offer no matter how large, as their social convention will always see the offer of charity as an insult and attempt to make them look bad by one up'ing them in their display of generosity. Others will accept ANY offer no matter the size as household autonomy is the convention, all offers are graciously accepted.
ItsJustARide314 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm finding this incredibly confusing. Its impossible to follow a conversation of multiple voices while reading some very quickly written words being scanned over by a quickly flitting camera. Its a disaster.
tintreas 1 year ago
I'm finding this incredibly confusing. Its impossible to follow a conversation of multiple voices while reading some very quickly written words being scanned over by a quickly flitting camera. Its a disaster.
tintreas 1 year ago
@tintreas - you can always watch something else.
pendletonpanther 1 year ago
Man I have learned so much about Economics from two video than all of the money spend in college. WOW!!
shuga635 1 year ago 3
Just goes to show that we have a very subjective notion of "altruism", that can extend to "well, I did not steal EVERYTHING, now did I?".
Like the politicians that boast that "I steal, but al least I build!"...
superpinga 1 year ago
So basically those experiments were pointless? :p
LindoPhoto 1 year ago
This artist is amazing and the info is incredible!
Satania1010 1 year ago
Comment removed
SeanPMcCool 1 year ago
AWESOME VIDEO!! :D
2angi 1 year ago
I wish I could learn about everything in the world like this.
frozentrually 1 year ago 278
@frozentrually Yeah, but beware who's drawing the picture!
EmptyJackets 9 months ago
@frozentrually
i know right? think about it, math class would be interesting, Shakespeare would be understandable, kids might take sex ed seriously. Learning this way would be awesome.
stanthema 8 months ago
I find this behaviour bizarre...I wouldn't give or take money from a stranger!
numcrun 1 year ago
These are great.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
I noticed on this sketch particularly.
The Cartoonists hand is fine his body not fine. Zoom in blur is a problem, Moving the camera around too quickly is a problem especially when zoomed in with fast-forward. Drawing when nothing is being said is a problem. Shadows or shine on the board is a problem.
Solutions: Bigger drawings, better lighting, Pause for clear images and slightly angled camera angle so we can see the board instead of the sketchers back.
Other wise great content
153SCORN 1 year ago
I mean this in a simplistic form shows that human behaviour is pretty determined according to the social settings of the paradigm. Very informative.
widerling 1 year ago
@ 9:56
"People were taking, on average, about 1 and a half dollars"
The board says $1.30.
nikkiinoodel 1 year ago
@nikkiinoodel And Dubner didn't say 'exactly' 1 and a half, he said 'about'.
mrhyde6 1 year ago
WHAT IF THERE WAS NO MONEY INVOLVED:
sherparocha 1 year ago
6:53 what percent gave 1-4??????
More importantly.. 6:55 what percent gave 0????? I heard the joke but you never said.
12107170 1 year ago
Awesome guys, keep it up
KingSLY0082 1 year ago
Fire/Explosions + Slow-mo + Vintage footage = Radness
look for: Netsky-Memory Lane music video Produced By: Raphael Klatzko & Jacques Gross.
raphaelklatzko 1 year ago
we want to see the prostitution version!
AAFEO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sound comes in @0:46 , could you remaster or edit the first 46 seconds' sound.
Amagansett1680 1 year ago
Comment removed
Amagansett1680 1 year ago
Comment removed
Amagansett1680 1 year ago
the vocals are too scratchy and annoying
nice concept
paradox1230 1 year ago
Yes but there were smarter people who made it very nice in their own favour. I will lend you the money you will give me back to me at any time you can and in compensation of my nearly altruistic gesture i'll take a small interest. Thats how altruistic are some people!!
van40dtown 1 year ago
LOL. Life is by definition not altruistic. Or else it goes extinct ASAP. Life is defined as bio-mass (and ideas) growing/improving/surviving. This growth, together with resource limits, creates natural selection. Which means that if you are altruistic, you give it away, and hence don’t survive, except to be useful “cattle” to some other life.
*Everyone*, even Mother Theresa, do *everything* they do, solely for their own interests. Either direct or indirect. Everything else is denial.
Evi1M4chine 1 year ago
@Evi1M4chine Cool story but not rooted in fact. You need to check out the one on "Drive" in this series. Motivations aren't nearly that transparent. I think this simply shows that things are much more grey than people usually hope for. We want our world to be neatly packaged into a little truth like your own views that "People are all selfish". In reality, the world is a complex place and thus demands much more complex rules for things to be as they are, neither black nor white.
Nateb123 1 year ago
@Evi1M4chine Perhaps you should read Richard Dawkins, in particular The Selfish Gene. Altruism has been shown to be a major driving force in evolution by many researchers, and proves to be a much more stable and robust model than that of self-interest. See also The Prisoner's Dilemma and Bertrand Russell's role in post-war policies.
juliobesq 1 year ago
Lol RSI org Repetitive strain injury.. imagine drawing this for a few hourse..
Randomperson64 1 year ago
I like the audio, but the camera moves way too much
rogerdodgeraviation 1 year ago 2
haha...I'm a UChicago student. I think it's hilarious to be depicted as a lab rat. :)
whatallegory 1 year ago
I agree, there's a problem here in the definition of altruism because the perception of what is and is not altruistic has to alter as the criteria change. So although these guys are right that there are other issues at work also (eg. how the subject wants to appear in front of the experimenter), the average participant's perception that they are doing the other person a favour is probably not that inconsistent. In a nutshell: people are more complex than economists will ever understand.
tamburlaine7 1 year ago
well that experiments just works if it's given money, whereas i don't think you'd see such altruism if the subject had to earn the money
domvasta 1 year ago
I would say that this experiment proves beyond reasonable doubt that, if you want a cooperative, peaceful society, dictatorship is a negative influence. When was there any dictator who wasn't, basically, a thief? We even talk about dictators in terms of 'stealing power'. Of course the most powerful dictatorships in the world today are the multinational corporations who run much like medieval city states.
colourmegone 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I think seing if the person is a real person would help in the giving process.
Was it established if the other persons 10 dollars was their own personal money or if they had been given it for this experiment. I think under the circumstances of not knowing anything about the other person then you just take half of whatever the amount is, I think that is fair.
TheThinkingManuk 1 year ago
I think seing if the person is a real person would help in the giving process.
Was it established if the other persons 10 dollars was their own personal money or if they had been given it for this experiment. I think under the circumstances of not knowing anything about the other person then you just take half of whatever the amount is, I think that is fair.
TheThinkingManuk 1 year ago
Comment removed
MWthrasher 1 year ago
Tl;dr
iChubz 1 year ago
....therefore, the argument that the participant's behavior is effected by the fact that he/she wants to appear "nice" still stands (and in my opinion, is a definate and underestimated factor at play here).
Joefest99 1 year ago
You have to take into account the mentality of the individual given the option to both take the other participants $10 and keep his/her own. This participant has the mind set that he/she is already in possession of the full $20 due to the fact that he/she has full authority over who receives it regardless of the fact that the other $10 is pysicaly in the other participants hand. Therefore "stealing" $3 is perceived by the participant as a gratuity of $7.....
Joefest99 1 year ago
yeah these guy's are way less impressive intellectuals than the guy who did 'the empathic civillization'. They are totally detatched from the ramifictions of these findings, indeed they seem smug to find that humans today are largely dodgy bastards. I'd like to know what their contention is apart from establishing that humans are greedy today. I mean it's good empirical evidence, but it's not exactly a surprise is it?
michaelcapponi2 1 year ago 2
very stimulating, visually and intellectually. makes me totally focused on what is being discussed! thanks
BabaBunnies 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very interesting video as it suggests our capacity for altruism depends either on the rules we give ourselves or, alternatively, – thinking developmentally, – would depend on a collective shift of paradigm, resulting in a changed subconscious “rule” we live by. – We sure have the capacity AND we have a struggle with it… I think it is misleading and does not do justice to the subject to think of it in terms of “are we - or are we not altruistic?” – It seems to be an option, hopefully..
tranzidanz 1 year ago
Very interesting video, as it suggests our capacity for altruism depends either on the rules we give ourselves or, alternatively, – thinking developmentally, – would depend on a collective shift of paradigm, resulting in a changed subconscious “rule” we live by. – We sure have the capacity AND we have a struggle with it… I think it is misleading and does not do justice to the subject to think of it in terms of “are we - or are we not altruistic?” – It seems to be an option, hopefully.
tranzidanz 1 year ago
The camera work is not nearly as good as it is in Crisis of Capitalism. It's almost unwatchable.
filmasart 1 year ago
awesome video. So interesting...
on a side note: I didn't know a dollar and a half was $1.30 @ 9:56 . =) ahha
dragonman4837 1 year ago
Love RSA, but sound on this on is very poor.
barskaya 1 year ago
me giving my money to someone else and the gvmt taking my money to give to someone else is wholly different.
alwaysending 1 year ago
This experiment seems far too simplistic and unrelated to the real life to me. The major problem with the setting is that people were allowed to decided what to do with money, which was given to them for FREE! Well, that's a massive difference, whether you find some money on the street and don't mind sharing it as opposed to having to EARN it first and then giving it away for nothing. Suggestion: Would be interesting to see, hot people reacted if they had to work to get the $10! Vote Up!
rootesk33 1 year ago 50
@rootesk33 agree with you, i would give away all that "free" $10 if I do not need them that instant.
RockshowFreak 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rootesk33 agree with you, i would give away all that "free" $10 if I do not need them that instant.
RockshowFreak 1 year ago
@rootesk33 I agree with you, but working for the money have to a degree, how much work did i put to get $ 10? If u worked a whole month and to earn $ 10 it's very different to someone who recieved free money or someone who earns 1 k per hour.
felo790 1 year ago
@rootesk33 They actually did this experiment They had the dictator and the subserviant each do some menial task (fill envolopes for another experiment) and then they had the students play the game and they found that the person was more likely to keep all of their money BUT not take the others' money. This finding suggests that when the dictator feels like another has worked for what they earned then the dictator is less likely to be greedy (take) but also far less likely to be altruistic (give)
myktrue 1 year ago
@rootesk33 in the book they actually do what you say, the results are that people in general don't steal nor give money. I have no clue as to why that part isn't mentioned in this video.
skcusderf 1 year ago 2
@rootesk33 It doesn't appear as though you've watched the whole thing through. He's comparing the current teaching of economics to the approach demonstrated by the experiments. Economists are taught that all consumers are self-interested buyers who will maximize the utility of their dispensable incomes. He's saying that the experiments disprove this. He's not saying that we're altruistic by nature either, but that we tend to behave as a community when given the opportunity, giving and taking
lite1979 1 year ago 27
@rootesk33
quote
"incredibly simplistic"
JonnyRakeRemix 1 year ago
@rootesk33 amen
i23abc 1 year ago
@rootesk33 according to economics text books and assumption of diminishing marginal utility there should not be any difference and people should tend to chose more than less.
zdeklinowany 1 year ago
@rootesk33
That's not the point of the experiment. The point is to conclude that people respond to their surroundings and the opportunity, so the same people can be 'giver' or 'stealer' depending on the opportunity. Now you have to have some imagination to see how that effects the real world.
So you might imagine that there's some percentage of people that voted up just because you told them to, not because they thought about the subject and came with their own opinion witch resembles yours.
boogiexx 1 year ago 7
@rootesk33 or perhaps a hundred thousand dollars? ten bucks is nothing, you cannot make any deductions about greed from ten bucks. What are the socio economic back grounds of the subjects? I would think poor people would come out looking greedier than a trustfundee.
samvan27 11 months ago
@samvan27 Well, I am sure the poor person might be greedier for the $10 as compared to a trustfundee, but I will bet that the trustfundee will be equally as greedy if not more than the poor when it comes to $100,000. The rich get rich because they are greedy. They are no better than others.
tenoh27 9 months ago
@tenoh27
That's actually false. A recent study from Berkeley showed that poor people are more altruistic than rich people by far. I can link you to it if you want. Poor people are more altruistic because they have more empathy and understanding of other's suffering.
mazuiface 9 months ago
@mazuiface
Depends on how you measure "altruism." If you measure it by feeling empathy or sympathy, then yes, that's probably correct, but if altruism is measured by the size and scope of donations, number of charities, organized relief efforts and other "big" charitable projects, then the wealthy take the cake by a long shot.
mylesproweer 9 months ago
@mylesproweer
This is not opinion that I am discussing. I appreciate your attempt at making a link between what you know and observe, but it's not going to be as significant as a published scientific study. There is empirical evidence that shows that rich people show less empathy and are less altruistic. If you want, I can send you the study. Just be connected to the internet through a library or college.
mazuiface 9 months ago
@tenoh27
The question is thus: What's the problem with greed? Do you not work because you want a higher standard of living and to have more, better things? People have a strong tendency to equate desire for more things (greed) with outright theft from others, when this is simply not the case. Wanting to have more things and willing to work for them is in no way immoral, nor is even excessive greed, so long as the "greedy" people aren't stealing from or hurting others.
mylesproweer 9 months ago
@rootesk33 Well you have the point, but if you give people 10$ and you give them the option to give that 10$ or even take 10$ from somebody else people will steal rather than give, and let me repeat they were given that 10$. That is what this example shows.
Bulletthe9 11 months ago
@rootesk33 Yes indeed, make people come in and do a task for half a day, and give them $10 for it, then this gives us two different scenarios. 1) The person next door hasn't done any work, will you give them some of your money? 2) The person next door has done the same work you have, but won't get paid for it unless you give them some. I think this new test 2 is a truer test for Altruism. And the "not-explainable-by-science" outlier from the original speech might finally keep his money in 1)
Phyrefly69 11 months ago
@rootesk33- Nothing is free, there is an opportunity cost for everything we do.
MrBmer 11 months ago
I think the biggest flaw with the these experiments is the fact that the participants are very aware that they are part of an experiment. I'd be very conscientiousness of my actions if I knew I was being observed. If you take the observers away, I'd argue that the lack of repercussions (fear of judgement) would lead to more selfish results.
schadara 11 months ago
@rootesk33 Money that is earned holds more value than money that is given to people. Your experiment would obviously show this influence of "hard work" vs "easy money". However, the experiment(s) in the video intentionally removes this influence so that it could focus purely on the altruistic behavior demonstrated by the participants. But I believe that merely letting the participants know that they were part of an experiment skews the results. Please see my earlier comment.
schadara 11 months ago
@rootesk33 in the book they talk about a case wear the two participants earn the money. then one is giving the power to give or take all th money and on average they do neither. so when they add they concept of earning they keeping everything the same they both get 10 dollars
eric2pena 11 months ago
@rootesk33 in the book, they explain how they go into the real world and see the same thing happening with people who earn their money etc.... thats what they were talking about with the dissonance between the lab and the real world.
Ultimape 11 months ago
Wonderful stuff, thank you. Please know that the volume on all of these RSA renditions are very low and hard to hear even with all my computers controls on max ( I have a lap top). Graet stuff, but a strain to hear. I hope you'll increase the volume.
gzpo 1 year ago
Its one thing to give away a portion of something you got for free, its another thing to give away a portion of something for which you must work, which, to me, would have been a much more interesting experiment. How do people feel about income taxes that exceed the 30% they seem to feel altruistic enough to "give away" in this experiment? And what are these tax rates in major western countries? Hmm...
sjdude 1 year ago
zoom in and out less often please. Gives me a headache.