timesonline.co.uk— Studies show how the brain lets the emotions override common sense when reaching some tough decisions. Our correspondent reports on the 'ultimatum game'
Oct 7, 2006View in Crawl 4
Any poker players here? Don't you sometimes screw yourself over (in a minor way) just to confuse your opponent and/or see how he reacts? Yeah, I guess I'll be the outlier in this experiement. 1 in 100, but it still happens, right?
These guys are not up to date on their game theory. Computer simulations have proven that a large multiplayer prisoners dilema game will not be stable unless a certain (relatively small) percentage of players are willing to altruistically punish, i.e. are willing to sacrifice personally in order to punish an uncooperative player. Essentially, if everyone is a nice guy, everybody wins. However, if everyone is always a nice guy then cheaters will take advantage. Unless some people are willing to punish cheaters at a loss to themselves the system of cooperation (i.e. what we call "society" or "civilization") will collapse into a state where everyone cheats. Therefore this instinct, to "leave free money on the table" as this article calls it, is part of what makes human societies possible.
Yes, I agree; especially in conjunction with the idea, which seems to be taken for granted in the article, that there is something irrational about being unselfish, that one could be unselfish only if one's reason were overwhelmed by emotion. It is frightening enough that people can blandly state such ideas, but the propect of someone's being able to enforce them, should they acquire sufficient political power, I find extremely disturbing. Those of us who are not sociopaths could be 'cured' of our 'irrationality.' I realize that the authors of the article are not in any way advocating such a thing, but the existence of such a technology is troubling.
absolutely agreed. as a rational human with a working conscious, i feel rather insulted by the entire article and can't believe its conclusions haven't been challenged as biased.
How are you utilizing it? Emotional satisfaction resulting from an emotional response is still irrational.And in brain imaging studies presented by the media, they need to stop referring to a part of the brain "shutting down"; this simply doesn't happen. Brain imaging is first, a relative measure and second, and more importantly, based on probability. "This" is, statistically, the most likely place where that activity was generated. Further, William Uttal's book The New Phrenology raises some great points regarding why brain imaging is not the panacea that some portray. Using technology does not inherently make something "more scientific." Now that is a study that I should pursue; people's perceptions of what makes something more scientific. I bet the use of the scientific method doesn't account for much of the variance!
Nelziq: could you give us a reference? What are the studies that "have proven that a large multiplayer prisoners dilema game will not be stable unless a certain (relatively small) percentage of players are willing to altruistically punish, i.e. are willing to sacrifice personally in order to punish an uncooperative player."? I'm not disagreeing, in fact what you say seems intuitively plausible. I would like to learn more.
thundeOct 7, 2006
Any poker players here? Don't you sometimes screw yourself over (in a minor way) just to confuse your opponent and/or see how he reacts? Yeah, I guess I'll be the outlier in this experiement. 1 in 100, but it still happens, right?
nelziqOct 8, 2006
These guys are not up to date on their game theory. Computer simulations have proven that a large multiplayer prisoners dilema game will not be stable unless a certain (relatively small) percentage of players are willing to altruistically punish, i.e. are willing to sacrifice personally in order to punish an uncooperative player. Essentially, if everyone is a nice guy, everybody wins. However, if everyone is always a nice guy then cheaters will take advantage. Unless some people are willing to punish cheaters at a loss to themselves the system of cooperation (i.e. what we call "society" or "civilization") will collapse into a state where everyone cheats. Therefore this instinct, to "leave free money on the table" as this article calls it, is part of what makes human societies possible.
talekOct 8, 2006
Yes, I agree; especially in conjunction with the idea, which seems to be taken for granted in the article, that there is something irrational about being unselfish, that one could be unselfish only if one's reason were overwhelmed by emotion. It is frightening enough that people can blandly state such ideas, but the propect of someone's being able to enforce them, should they acquire sufficient political power, I find extremely disturbing. Those of us who are not sociopaths could be 'cured' of our 'irrationality.' I realize that the authors of the article are not in any way advocating such a thing, but the existence of such a technology is troubling.
kaidadragonflyOct 8, 2006
Refusing the 2.50 makes sense if you consider the person giving as a "opponent" in the game.Then by doing so, they lose three times what you do.
fuzzmelloOct 8, 2006
absolutely agreed. as a rational human with a working conscious, i feel rather insulted by the entire article and can't believe its conclusions haven't been challenged as biased.
Closed AccountOct 8, 2006
How are you utilizing it? Emotional satisfaction resulting from an emotional response is still irrational.And in brain imaging studies presented by the media, they need to stop referring to a part of the brain "shutting down"; this simply doesn't happen. Brain imaging is first, a relative measure and second, and more importantly, based on probability. "This" is, statistically, the most likely place where that activity was generated. Further, William Uttal's book The New Phrenology raises some great points regarding why brain imaging is not the panacea that some portray. Using technology does not inherently make something "more scientific." Now that is a study that I should pursue; people's perceptions of what makes something more scientific. I bet the use of the scientific method doesn't account for much of the variance!
talekOct 27, 2006
Nelziq: could you give us a reference? What are the studies that "have proven that a large multiplayer prisoners dilema game will not be stable unless a certain (relatively small) percentage of players are willing to altruistically punish, i.e. are willing to sacrifice personally in order to punish an uncooperative player."? I'm not disagreeing, in fact what you say seems intuitively plausible. I would like to learn more.