Explore
For Enterprise
Join for Free
Log In

Arts et humanités
Business
Informatique
Science des données
Technologies de l'information
santé
Mathématiques et logique
Développement personnel
Sciences physiques et ingénierie
Sciences sociales
Apprentissage des langues
Diplômes
Certificats

Explorez l'intégralité de Coursera

Parcourir
Rechercher
For Enterprise
Connexion
Inscrivez-vous gratuitement

Criticisms of Economic Games

Loading...

La moralité de la vie quotidienne

Université Yale

4.8 (881 notes) | 42K étudiants inscrits

How can we explain kindness and cruelty? Where does our sense of right and wrong come from? Why do people so often disagree about moral issues? This course explores the psychological foundations of our moral lives.

Visualiser le programme de cours

Compétences que vous apprendrez

Philosophy, Psychology, Social Psychology, Moral Universe

Avis

4.8 (881 notes)

5 stars
759 ratings
4 stars
107 ratings
3 stars
10 ratings
2 stars
3 ratings
1 star
2 ratings

SK

Oct 06, 2016

Excellent course! It not only explained the different influences on morality but empowered us by explaining how can we use reason to become better persons. A BIG thank you to Prof. Paul Bloom!

JH

Jan 14, 2018

Brilliantly taught and eye-opening content. I've bought the books and am engaged in follow-up self-study. Thank you Professor Bloom for helping me understand the world in a new way!

À partir de la leçon

Family, Friends, and Strangers

Our moral feelings are usually most powerful towards our kin (such as our parents and our children) and our friends and allies. We will discuss these special bonds, and then turn to the morality of racial and ethnic bias. Then we use the tools of behavioral economics to explore the controversial question of whether we are ever truly altruistic to strangers.

Criticisms of Economic Games11:55

How Do We Naturally Respond to Strangers?6:23

The Problem of Kindness10:23

Enseigné par

Paul Bloom
Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Science at Yale University

Transcription

So, the story we were left with at the end of last lecture is

that his economic gains will reflect his natural kindness and a part of people.

He's natural.

Egalitarian motives, since we were chosen at random, it's just the flip of

a coin that I'm A and not B, I should share the wealth.

I should, I should sort of just pass around some of it to the next person.

Now, this is a very nice interpretation of the data,

but many people are a lot more cynical.

There's something which seems strange about this response.

If I'm walking down the street, And I find a, you know,

I don't know, 10, 20 dollar bills on the sidewalk, I don't immediately

look around for someone to hand half of it to, even though

it was just an accident I found it instead of the next person.

So why do people behave so generously in these

economic games?

Well, there's 2 sort of cynical, alternatives.

1, is that it's not so much that the people want

to be good, it's more that people want to look good.

So, in all of these experiments, people are typically

acting and then experimenting sort of writing down a recording.

What they're doing.

And it might be that when people are being

kind and generous, they're, they're doing so because they don't want

to look like a bad person in front of the experimenter.

Now some of these experiments are done anonymously, but even then

people have a good sense that what they're doing is being monitored.

And often even when they're told it's anonymous, it really isn't.

Their behavior is being monitored.

And they find it awkward to do something bad in front of an audience.

And we've seen this before.

When we discussed the

psychology of religion and its moral effects,

we talked about experiments showing that when

people are being observed, they're nicer than,

than when than when they're not observed.

So people are more likely to cheat when shown a computer screen like this.

Then a computer screen like that, which gives

them the impression that somebody is watching them.

There was this lovely study where, where psychologists looked at the

extent of what people would pay for the milk that they

would use and had two sorts of posters up, either flowers

or eyes, and found out people were much more likely to pay.

When there were eyes on the poster as opposed to flowers.

So we, we could see that maybe the observation, people behave nicely in

order to preserve your reputation, in order not to look like jerks.

One economist points out that, imagine doing the dictator game.

And now you're on national TV. Your parents are watching.

All your friends are watching.

And you're probably going to get 50% because you want

to show the world what a nice person you are.

So, plainly, reputation has some effect.

There's now experiments suggesting that reputation may have a big effect and I'll

tell you about 2 studies, which I like very much.

1 is by uh; Dana and his colleagues.

So Dana and his colleagues are saying very clever, they explain

to their subjects what a dictator game was, and then they gave then a choice.

Either, we'll give you 10 dollars and you'll

play a dictator game with somebody in the other

room, or we'll give you just $9 and you can just walk away and keep the $9.

And what they found was many of their subjects took the $9.

Try to think for a moment what you would do.

So there is certain sense in which taking the $9 is crazy.

Because suppose you are greedy.

Well, if you are really greedy and all you care about

is yourself, you should just take the $10 and walk away.

In the dictator game.

Why, why settle for a dollar less?

Suppose you're generous.

Well if you're generous you should certainly play the dictator game,

and give away some of the money to the other person.

So why would people take the $9 and leave?

Well, what Dana and colleagues suggest is They wanted

to get a lot of money out of the

situation but they didn't want to have to feel

pressured to give, and there's a nice analogy to this.

There's a beggar on the street, and he has a cup out

for money, and I could, and, and one option is

I could walk past him and give him some money.

And another option is, I could walk past them, and not give them some money.

But a 3rd option is, I could cross the street, so I don't have to walk past them.

I could cross the street so I'm not

confronted with the option of having to be kind.

And I think this is why sometimes people

take the $9.

Another study was done by List and his colleagues.

And this is a modified dictator game, so there's Person A and there's Person B.

And Person A is told okay you're going to get $10, here's $10 for you.

And the other person who's in an another room,

you're not going to see him is going to get $5.

And the question is, how much of your $10 do you want to give away?

Under no circumstances, people give about $2.

They start to give some small sum of money.

And that's, and, and, and [INAUDIBLE] look, look, people are being generous.

But then, they did a clever twist on this.

They had exactly the same scenario, but now they told

the person, okay you have $10, other person's $5 You could

give that other person as much money as you want,

or you can take as much money as you want from

the other person.

Now, if the giving is just motivated by

generosity, this other option shouldn't make any difference.

Because, you know, why would I ever want to take from this person?

But it does make a difference.

When given the option of taking, all of a sudden,

people start taking away a little bit from the other person.

So how do we think about this? Well, their interpretation goes like this.

Suppose you let the standard game, you get $10, another person $5.

You're told

to give as much as you want to the other person.

And what you think is you know, I want to walk away with as much money as possible.

But I don't want to look like an ass, so I'll give him some money.

In a second circumstance you have $10 you could either give, you could take.

You say, look I want to walk away with as much

money as possible and I don't want to look like an ass.

What an ass would do is take all of

his money. I am not going to do that.

I will just take a little of it.

There is no generosity here.

It's basically reputation management and the idea is that that

our behavior is not so much governed by a sense of

right and wrong, as a sense of wanting to appear

right or wrong in front of an imagined or real spectator.

So that's 1 sort of objection to

the standard interpretation of these economic games.

A 2nd one is that regardless of why people give in the dictator game, whether its

due to generosity or its due to reputation management, this may not be universal.

It may be cultural.

So, in a classic article published just, just a couple years ago by Joseph

Henrich and his colleagues, they talk about

what they describe as the weirdest people

in the world.

And weird is an acronym, meaning Western Educated Industrial Rich Democracies.

And they point out most psychology research is done with weird people.

Roughly 96% of the subjects of psychology experiments are from western

educated, industrial rich democracies, in fact 68% of the subjects are from America.

Roughly 99% of the authors Of psychology experiments are from

weird societies, and about 3 quarters are from the United States.

But only 12% of modern humans come from weird societies.

So almost all of our edifice of psychology, both this, the people we study

and the people who do the studying, are from a very narrow subset Of humanity.

More than that, this narrow subset is unusual in certain

significant regards. So, where people differ in their

lifestyle than the way humans have lived, and

the conditions under which we've evolved Through almost all of human history.

For a vast majority of our evolutionary history, we've lived small

scale societies that have no schools, governments, hospitals, police, complex

divisions of labor, market's, militaries, former laws or mechanized transport.

These are all pointed out by Hen Ricadall in her article.

They point out that that, that children had no books.

And no TV, they had no internet.

They learn ,they didn't go away to go to school.

They learned through observation and imitation by

around age 10 they were expected to be able to gather there own food.

And routinly kill and butcher animals.

This isn't the life that weird people

live including me, is entirely different from that.

And a life that weird children live in, including my children and including

the children that I study in my lab is entirely different from that.

Hen Ricadall suggests that this difference might make a difference.

They suggest that

data we collect on weird societies

including data about moral intuitions, including

data about generosity, and economic gains may not reflect the natural human state.

But rather may reflect a very unusual sort of cultural

[UNKNOWN] and then they do studies that might support this.

So, if you look at United States' behavior in the dictator game, in 1 study people in

the United States give just under 50% of their resources.

They give a huge, just about half of their money, to a stranger.

But then you look at other societies and it

turns out you get a huge amount of variation.

And in fact the US case, which is, may be taken

as prototypical, or, or, or sort of average, isn't average at all.

It's extremely generous.

And when you look at, at small scale societies that

are less weird, you find considerably less generosity towards strangers.

Now this point, that societies that are not weird, societies

that where, where people live closer to the way in

which we, we existed for most of evolutionary history shows

up also in reports of, of, of ethnographers and anthropologists.

So Jared Diamond for instance talks about

the lifestyle of people in Papua New Guinea.

And he writes, to venture out of one's territory to meet other humans,

even if they lived only a few miles away, was equivalent to suicide.

And Margaret Mead writes,

most primitive tribes feel that if you run across one of these subhumans from a

rival group in the forest, the most appropriate

thing to do is bludgeon him to death.

Now I grant that we are different, I grant that

people in this society and people in, in non weird,

sorry in weird society more generally, do help strangers, do give

do give resources to strangers We interact with strangers regularly.

I, I will land in a strange airport, and I will

be alone and I will be surrounded by people I don't know.

And, and I will not, they will not attack me.

I don't believe they'll attack me, I do not hate them.

But what the data suggests is that this

kindness to strangers is neither robust nor universal.

It's fragile, and it's a cultural innovation,

deeply connected to concerns about reputation and

not something that comes naturally to us.

[MUSIC]

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play

Coursera
À propos
Direction
Carrières
Catalogue
Certificats
Certificats MasterTrack™
Diplômes
For Enterprise
For Government

Communauté
Learners
Partners
Developers
Beta Testers
Translators

Se connecter
Blog
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
Blog Tech

Plus
Conditions
Confidentialité
Aide
Accessibilité
Presse
Contact
Répertoire
Filiales