Yesterday I wrote a diary about the false premises underpinning The Conservative Agenda, namely that greed is good and government is bad. That diary used the work of Ernst Fehr of the Institute for Empirical Economic Research and extensive findings resulting from playing the game known as The Public Goods Game to support the contention that the countervailing cooperative impulse, sometimes refered to as "ultra-sociality," exists and prevails among human beings. In the philosophical battle between the "YOYO"s (Your On Your Own) and the the "WIIT"s (We're In It Together), Fehr's research provides empirical evidence that the WIITs have a strong argument based on that very thing, "human nature," that the Conservative Agenda is always falling back on to defend its greed. (As an aside, as much as I'd like to see the WIITs reclaim "god" and "religion" from the Republicans, I'd like to see us reclaim "human nature" even more!) Today's diary is about The Ultimatum Game, its results across a variety of cultures, and how organizations like Focus on The Family fare in such analysis.
As with the previous diary, I've taken much of the analysis from Peter Turchin's excellent book War and Peace and War: The Life Cycles of Imperial Nations, especially his chapter entitled "The Myth of Self-Interest."
The Ultimatum Game is played between 2 people. One proposes a deal and one responds to the proposal. Unlike The Public Goods Game which entails 10 rounds of play among groups having 4 team members each, The Ultimatum Game has only one round involving anonymous players. The task before the players is to divide up a kitty of $10. The Proposer offers a certain percentage of $10 (only whole numbers allowed). The Responder can either accept the proposal or reject it. If he or she rejects it, nobody gets any of the money. Self-interest Theory predicts that the Responder, if "a Knave" - see my previous diary - should accept any amount rather than get nothing out of the deal. The Proposer, assuming the Self-Interest Theory, knows this and will offer as little as possible to maximize his or her percentage of the deal. However, if the Responder is "A Moralist" rather than "A Knave", he or she will reject the low offer, insisting on a more fairly divided kitty instead. This is especially true in societies that value Fairness highly. In such societies the Proposer, knowing that Fairness is a social norm, will make more equitable proposals, and these will be more frequently accepted by the Responder.
When this game was played by university students in America, Japan, Israel and Slovenia, the probability that a low, unfair offer would be rejected was highest in America and Slovenia, intermediate in Japan and lowest in Israel. If you live in a society where low-balling is accepted, low balling will occur. This has far-reaching implications for the minimum wage debate.
As for small-scale "traditional" societies (the developing world, as it were), The Ultimatum game was played in 15 such nations. Nomadic, herding and farming cultures were represented among the 15. The Machiguenga of Peru, whose economy is entirely focused on the household, made the lowest offers. The Machiguenga economy has virtually eliminated any productive activity that would require cooperation from anyone outside of members of the family. The Ache of Paraguay, who are hunters, showed the most equity in their offers, consistently proposing a 50-50 split of the kitty. The highly networked society of the hunter is reflected in their response to The Ultimatum Game. Cooperation among non-family members is essential for survival in such a society.
Interestingly, the Gnau of New Guinea consistently rejected HIGH proposals, as accepting such proposals would trigger indebtedness to the generous giver and reduce the Responder's leverage in the future.
Turchin sums up these (results from both The Social Goods Game and The Ultimatum Game) findings thusly: "It is simply not true that all people behave entirely in self-interest. Some people - the Knaves - are like that...Cultural practices and social institutions have a strong effect on whether and how collection action can be sustained."
Consider Dobson's "Focus on The Family" in light of the Machiguenga of Peru. When your society reduces itself to the family unit, cooperation in the larger world disintegrates and the "me first-ers" prevail. Not exactly a Christain concept.
Government, in light of these experiments and findings, is what we make it. "Moralists" are required to keep the "Freeriders" from sabotaging the common good. In the US, the Trans-National Corporation is the freerider par excellance! Sirota's book, Hostile Takeover, documents just how much a free ride those institutions get. Senator Byron Dorgan's book also provides ample evidence that those self-appointed paragons of virtue, the "Capitalists", are more likely than not the least virtuous among us. Government, so long maligned by The Conservative Agenda, is necessary as a "Moralist" counter to the knavery of self-interest.