A lot of these things make happy sense from an academic point of view, but
start failing when you apply them to real life and anecdotal evidence. There
are very few social norms which are universally accepted.
From: cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Ilitirit Sama
Sent: 29 November 2017 2:28 PM
To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Hello
I don't think anyone fully understands that rationale for the decisions in the
UM game. Game Theorists and Economists say "it makes no sense".
Neuroscientists, sociologists and anthropologists look at it an evolutionary
and/or social perspective.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Donaldson, Alasdair
<alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I completely get the altruistic one, but the self-control one has a lot broader
connotations, which is why I want to make sure that I’m understanding it
correctly. It would indicate that something like ‘fairness’ is a pretty common
moral compass for most cultures (the experiment has been conducted all over the
place). Secondly, we all have the desire to punish people who don’t play fairly
and we sometimes hold back on that, but when drunk and operating without real
thinking, we want fairness to exist.
From: cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On
Behalf Of Ilitirit Sama
Sent: 29 November 2017 2:12 PM
To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Hello
There's a version of this with kids that parents use to encourage fairness.
Both kids want a portion of something. Tell the one kid he gets to split it
up, but the other gets to choose the portion.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Donaldson, Alasdair
<alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Question here for anyone with a basic understanding of game theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Ultimatum-5Fgame&d=DwMFaQ&c=0TzQCy9lgR5hSW-bDg5HA76y7nf4lvOzvVop5GM3Y80&r=3188cCLKqrRVUgvzUimFxNxHH_Hcs83no5DXOBKTq-g&m=017SyTO2dSADqgkcTkKlhWWD07JfOh7iz-YtQgJu8Fc&s=jFpkGuYamVEuIyTmUltNaBz8LGLDx8oEudhe2NcuQiU&e=>
In the Ultimatum game, I have an amount of money, say R40. I have to split it
between me and someone else – like you. If you reject my offer, I get nothing.
Now the best situation for all is for me to split it equally – R20 for you and
R20 for me. But what if I go with less, like me keeping R30 and you getting
R10. At some point you will get pissed off and say no. For example, if I say
keep R39 and give you R1, you will most likely tell me to get bent. That means
that I get nothing. It also means that you get nothing. You could’ve had R1 for
nothing, but chose not to. This doesn’t make sense logically. If I know you’re
working on logic, I’ll maximise my return.
Why this is important is because in experiments, people didn’t accept the
really low offers (R1). Since the only outcome of that is everyone getting
nothing, it means that people don’t operate on the whole ‘rational,
utility-maximising’ decisions that economists are so happy to fall back on.
So… why do people reject the low offers? Two main reasons:
1. Altruistic punishment – you reject the R1 to teach me a lesson – that
I shouldn’t be greedy in the future.
2. Self control (see below)
By contrast, a self-control account suggests that rejections constitute a
failure to inhibit a desire to punish the first player for making an unfair
offer. Morewedge, Krishnamurti, and Ariely (2014) found that intoxicated
participants were more likely to reject unfair offers than sober
participants.[11]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Ultimatum-5Fgame-23cite-5Fnote-2D11&d=DwMFaQ&c=0TzQCy9lgR5hSW-bDg5HA76y7nf4lvOzvVop5GM3Y80&r=3188cCLKqrRVUgvzUimFxNxHH_Hcs83no5DXOBKTq-g&m=017SyTO2dSADqgkcTkKlhWWD07JfOh7iz-YtQgJu8Fc&s=GfxLOFLxir-maeC6K9bWzA3XVwQDDOaJ7GRRo-zykCo&e=>
As intoxication tends to exacerbate decision makers' prepotent response, this
result provides support for the self-control than the altruistic punishment
account. Other research from social cognitive neuroscience supports this
finding.[12]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Ultimatum-5Fgame-23cite-5Fnote-2D12&d=DwMFaQ&c=0TzQCy9lgR5hSW-bDg5HA76y7nf4lvOzvVop5GM3Y80&r=3188cCLKqrRVUgvzUimFxNxHH_Hcs83no5DXOBKTq-g&m=017SyTO2dSADqgkcTkKlhWWD07JfOh7iz-YtQgJu8Fc&s=SJoEK0HFqXE23S7OUpYuVILDhTwbM4dKaJrOrs6Cunc&e=>
Anyone know what exactly they’re trying to say here? It sounds like they’re
saying that everyone has desire to punish someone for being unfair and that
sometimes we can’t stop that desire from manifesting. This isn’t necessarily to
teach them a lesson. We’re just wanting to punish them.
Is that right or am I misreading this completely?
From: cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On
Behalf Of Ilitirit Sama
Sent: 29 November 2017 1:22 PM
To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Hello
As for "cleaning" the money, there are many ways to skin a cat. Most common
(although SARS has made this slightly harder) is to just upgrade your property.
Buy it for a million. Spend R500k on upgrades (no paper trails). Sell for
R2million.
There are still loads of people who will do work like this for cash.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Wynand-Ben
<paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
They used to use the intercom to get me to approve or deny visitors entry.
Its been borked for a while.
They rebuilding the whole security entrance area next year with a similar
system again using our cellphones.
Gonna get a call and do a whole press 1 to approve or press 2 to deny entry etc.
________________________________
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else
is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please
address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to the original
sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken
or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are subject to the terms and
conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions,
conclusions and other information in this e-mail and any attachments that do
not relate to the official business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed
by it.
KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, as
information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services to
you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss entity
that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent firms
operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no services to
clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally distinct and
separate entity and each describes itself as such. Information about the
structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be obtained from
your KPMG representative.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
AntiVirus software.
________________________________
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else
is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please
address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to the original
sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken
or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are subject to the terms and
conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions,
conclusions and other information in this e-mail and any attachments that do
not relate to the official business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed
by it.
KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, as
information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services to
you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss entity
that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent firms
operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no services to
clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally distinct and
separate entity and each describes itself as such. Information about the
structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be obtained from
your KPMG representative.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
AntiVirus software.
**********************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else
is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please
address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to the original
sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken
or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are subject to the terms and
conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions,
conclusions and other information in this e-mail and any attachments that do
not relate to the official business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed
by it.
KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, as
information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services to
you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss entity
that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent firms
operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no services to
clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally distinct and
separate entity and each describes itself as such. Information about the
structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be obtained from
your KPMG representative.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
AntiVirus software.
