194
9 Networked Minds
have an aversion to inequality.
32 Others, such as Herbert Gintis (*1940), assumed
that cooperation has a genetic basis (“strong reciprocity”).
33
There is also a simpler game, known as the “Dictator Game”, which is even more
stunning in some respects. In this game, one person receives some money and is
asked to decide how much he/she would give to another person—it could be nothing!
Although the potential recipient does not have any influence on the outcome, many
people tend to share nevertheless. On average, people give away about 20% of the
money they receive from the experimenter. Of course, there are always exceptions
and some people don’t share.
Why do we have this tendency of people to share? In principle, this could result
from the feeling of being watched by others, which might trigger behavior that
complies with social norms. If this were the case, sharing wouldn’t occur when decisions are taken anonymously. To test this, we made a Web experiment with strangers
who never met in person.
34 Both the proposer and the responder received a fixed
sum of money to participate in the experiment. However, rather than sharing money,
they had to decide how to share a workload involving several hundred calculations.
In the worst case, one of them would have to do all the calculations, while the other
would get money without having to work! To our great surprise, even in this anonymous setting, the participants tended to share the workload quite fairly. Thus, there
is no doubt that many people behave other-regarding when making decisions. They
clearly have a preference for fair behavior. As observing people (“surveillance”)
doesn’t largely increase the level of fairness, people apparently behave according to
inborn principles or internalized norms.
9.19 Appendix 2: A Smarter Way of Interacting,
not Socialism
Many governments currently try to counter inequality by redistributing wealth using
centralized social welfare systems. In contrast, the concept of “homo socialis” has
nothing to do with socialism or with wealth redistribution. Therefore, “homo socialis”
should not be considered to be some form of tamed “homo economicus”, who shares
some of his/her payoff with others. As we have discussed before, “homo economicus”
tends to suffer as a result of “tragedies of the commons”, whereas “homo socialis” can
overcome them by considering the externalities of decisions. Thus, “homo socialis”
can generate higher profits on average. The consideration of externalities by “homo
socialis” creates more favorable outcomes, at least in the long term.
In contrast, when everyone behaves like “homo economicus”, a few individuals
generate high profits in social dilemma situations by exploiting others, while the vast
majority of people lose out. Wealth redistribution does not overcome such “tragedies
32 Fehr and Schmidt [22].
33 Gintis [23].
34 Ciampaglia et al. [24, 25]; see also Berger et al. [26].
9 Networked Minds
have an aversion to inequality.
32 Others, such as Herbert Gintis (*1940), assumed
that cooperation has a genetic basis (“strong reciprocity”).
33
There is also a simpler game, known as the “Dictator Game”, which is even more
stunning in some respects. In this game, one person receives some money and is
asked to decide how much he/she would give to another person—it could be nothing!
Although the potential recipient does not have any influence on the outcome, many
people tend to share nevertheless. On average, people give away about 20% of the
money they receive from the experimenter. Of course, there are always exceptions
and some people don’t share.
Why do we have this tendency of people to share? In principle, this could result
from the feeling of being watched by others, which might trigger behavior that
complies with social norms. If this were the case, sharing wouldn’t occur when decisions are taken anonymously. To test this, we made a Web experiment with strangers
who never met in person.
34 Both the proposer and the responder received a fixed
sum of money to participate in the experiment. However, rather than sharing money,
they had to decide how to share a workload involving several hundred calculations.
In the worst case, one of them would have to do all the calculations, while the other
would get money without having to work! To our great surprise, even in this anonymous setting, the participants tended to share the workload quite fairly. Thus, there
is no doubt that many people behave other-regarding when making decisions. They
clearly have a preference for fair behavior. As observing people (“surveillance”)
doesn’t largely increase the level of fairness, people apparently behave according to
inborn principles or internalized norms.
9.19 Appendix 2: A Smarter Way of Interacting,
not Socialism
Many governments currently try to counter inequality by redistributing wealth using
centralized social welfare systems. In contrast, the concept of “homo socialis” has
nothing to do with socialism or with wealth redistribution. Therefore, “homo socialis”
should not be considered to be some form of tamed “homo economicus”, who shares
some of his/her payoff with others. As we have discussed before, “homo economicus”
tends to suffer as a result of “tragedies of the commons”, whereas “homo socialis” can
overcome them by considering the externalities of decisions. Thus, “homo socialis”
can generate higher profits on average. The consideration of externalities by “homo
socialis” creates more favorable outcomes, at least in the long term.
In contrast, when everyone behaves like “homo economicus”, a few individuals
generate high profits in social dilemma situations by exploiting others, while the vast
majority of people lose out. Wealth redistribution does not overcome such “tragedies
32 Fehr and Schmidt [22].
33 Gintis [23].
34 Ciampaglia et al. [24, 25]; see also Berger et al. [26].