Re: [Marxism] The ultimatum game.

[David Picón Álvarez <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "John" <johnedmundson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>I think one problem with game theory scenarios is that they make
> assumptions which bourgeois ideology assume to be valid but I don't see
> as being compatible with Marxism.
[...]
> A doesn't make a free decision based solely on how much s/he can "get
> away with". The laws of the operation of capitalism place constraints on
> A's choices. Competition with other capitalists, the strength of the
> economy, the strength of B (organisationally, since B isn't existing in
> a vacuum either) all bear on the decision. In the end, how much B gets
> from A is won in struggle, not by atomised decisions made by A and
> accepted or rejected by B.
[More good points.]

I agree these games are not apt modelling tools for capitalism as it exists 
or can ever exist. That said, I think they're useful in other ways. 
Bourgeois ideology starts from certain premises, which include the idea that 
individuals are 1) atomic, 2) very similar in their motivations, 3) utility 
maximizers and 4) care primarily about themselves. A game like this, where 
the atomicity is artificially kept, can help us show how the other premises 
are untrue, or less true than believed. One of the most interesting aspects 
of these experiments is that, unlike some other psychological experiments 
where people have very similar reactions across culture, it appears that 
this inequity aversion, or whatever we wish to call it, is very much 
conditioned by culture. Individuals from different cultures gave very 
different splits. This deals with premise #2 on my list, what bourgeois 
ideology tends to call "human nature".

Dealing with Hasan Keser on the way, it doesn't appear these results are due 
to "bounded rationality", which is to say, it doesn't seem that they are a 
result of agent miscalculation. At least it appears to be so on the basis 
that repeated iteration of the game doesn't significantly changed the 
strategy played by the agents towards an NE. Likewise, in relation with the 
problem of contextualization, an experiment was performed in a country where 
the amount of money at stake was a big deal, and the results were very 
similar, with people refusing inequitable splits which gave them up to the 
equivalent of 2-weeks sallary. That seems to suggest, although it may not 
establish, that the game has a certain level of relevance for real-world 
behaviour.

I'd like to say I have nothing as such against utility calculation and 
rationality, I think efficient use of resources is a good thing. It is the 
bourgeois premises on what people should want--everything they can get and 
nothing for everyone else--I take issue with.

--David.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu