Posted on 03/06/2008 7:33:30 PM PST by blam
British sense of fair play proven by science
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 7:01pm GMT 06/03/2008
The British sense of fair play has been scientifically proven by experiments held in 16 cities which show that, by comparison, the Russians and Greeks thirst for revenge.
The idealised games held around the world have shed new light on the way in which people co-operate for the common good - and what happens when they don't.
The research published today in the journal Science shows that taking revenge is more common in relatively corrupt and undemocratic traditional societies based on authoritarian and parochial social institutions, where citizens think it is acceptable to dodge taxes or flout laws because criminal acts frequently go unpunished.
The international study looked at the extent to which some people will sacrifice personal gain to benefit the wider public, while 'freeloaders' try to take advantage of their generosity.
In earlier work, scientists devised a financial game in which participants had to decide whether to commit their resources - tokens - to a common pot or hold back and reap the benefits of the others' community spirit.
Without a financial punishment for those who did not make public-spirited investments, but continued to exploit the generous nature of others, co-operation rapidly foundered.
Based on this game, Prof Simon Gaechter and Dr Benedikt Herrmann at The University of Nottingham, and Dr Christian Thoni at the University of St Gallen, Switzerland, studied the behaviour of people in 16 cities around the world, from Boston and Bonn to Riyadh, Minsk, Nottingham, Seoul and others.
Prof Gaechter says: "To our knowledge this is the largest cross-cultural study of experimental games that has been carried out in the developed world."
Levels of co-operation were remarkably similar across all 16 cities, they report.
However, against the predictions of economists, behaviour changed dramatically when everyone's contributions were revealed - and players were given the ability to punish other player by taking tokens away.
As previous studies have shown, players were willing to part with a token of their own in order to punish the low investors or the freeloaders who had exploited others.
But striking national differences then arose when freeloaders were punished for putting their own interests ahead of the common good.
In countries such as the US, Switzerland and the UK, the freeloaders accepted their punishment, became much more co-operative and the earnings in the game increased over time.
However, in countries such as Greece and Russia, the freeloaders sought retribution - exerting revenge on those who had punished them - even the model citizens who had paid their way. Co-operation for the common good then plummeted as a result.
In societies where the modern ethic of co-operation with strangers is less familiar and the rule of law is perceived to be weak, revenge is more common and co-operation suffers, comments Dr Herrmann.
What is fascinating about the behaviour in the games is that they parallel measures of norms of civic co-operation and rule of law made by social scientists, says Dr Herrmann. These norms cover general attitudes to the law, for example whether or not citizens think it is acceptable to dodge taxes or flout laws.
In societies where this behaviour is widespread and the rule of law is perceived to be ineffective - that is, if criminal acts frequently go unpunished - anti-social "revenge" punishment thrives.
"In societies where public co-operation is ingrained and people trust their law enforcement institutions, revenge is generally shunned," he says. "But in societies where the modern ethic of co-operation with unrelated strangers is less familiar and the rule of law is weak, revenge is more common."
Economists are keen to understand the decision-making processes behind co-operation, as working together for the common good is crucial for progress in any society - not least for effectively addressing big issues such as recycling and tackling climate change.
The issue of how to make the public share responsibility for common problems such as climate change was most vividly illustrated by Prof Garrett Hardin, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, in his influential 1968 paper 'The tragedy of the commons'.
He used the example of a public pasture. Each herdsman will add one cow after the other to a common field, because the benefit of an additional cow goes exclusively to the herdsman, but the cost of overgrazing is shared by all and the pasture will end up ruined.
"The rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. "
Dr Hermann says: "There are numerous examples in everyday life of situations where co-operation is the best option but there are incentives to take a free ride, such as recycling, neighbourhood watch, voting, maintaining the local environment, tackling climate change, and so on. We need to understand why people behave in this way because co-operation is very strongly inhibited in the presence of anti-social punishment."
In a commentary in the journal Science, Prof Herbert Gintis of the Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, confirms how: "Anti-social punishment was rare in the most democratic societies and very common otherwise.
"Using the World Democracy Audit evaluation of countries' performance in political rights, civil liberties, press freedom and corruption, the top six performers among the countries studied were also in the lowest seven for anti-social punishment. These were the USA, UK, Germany, Denmark, Australia and Switzerland."
He adds: "Their results suggest that the success of democratic market societies may depend critically upon moral virtues as well as material interests, so the depiction of civil society as the sphere of 'naked self-interest' is radically incorrect."
Snort roll eyes.
Unfortunately, this didn’t work well for the Brits before and during WWII.
not to split hairs, but does science really “prove” anything?
or after.
It ensured we had an Empire, so it worked out fine. Compare and contrast with what happened to the French, the Spanish empire, the Tsars, the Ottoman empire etc. The universality of the rule of law (which is what "fair play" is) made all the difference. IMO.
February 7, 2006
UK poll: 37% of Muslims in Britain think British Jews are a “legitimate target”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010071.php
It is all a game of poker. Will the person across the table become your ally or enemy.
Allies become enemies and enemies become allies. So the world turns. The trick is to know when.
Of course, Neville Chamberlain’s motives may have been a little more selfish than “fair play.” If you make deals with the devil, maybe he’ll leave you alone and go after someone else. Didn’t work though.
I’d like to see the same study done across the “developing” and third world.
“The rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. “
Ironically this is called “herd mentality” and it is precisely why off-shoring high tech jobs will end with the same result, tragedy. CEO’s can only conclude they must offshore to increase profits and reduce cost. The bigger picture is lost on them because their is no negative feedback mechanism to prevent abuse.
Like rats to cheese they never ration their resources, only take, until eventually they starve to death.
Cooperate for the common good means not fighting back home invasion - be nice to them, offer them tea and crumpets ... introduce them to your wife and daughter .... and above all, do not allow them to be hurt with insensitive words ....
This study is "questionable" at best.
“Kill my Neighbor’s Goat.”
I can vaguely remember reading a story, possibly from a Russian author, about a Russian peasant who had somehow earned a miracle from an angel. His request? “I have a neighbor, and my neighbor has a goat. I don’t have a goat. I want you to kill my neighbor’s goat.”
Hence Putin?
I have another theory.
Areas with authoritarian government, especially ones that lose their Christian identity, breed a class of people that become comfortable with the idea of disobeying laws and looking out only for themselves.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s hard to put back in. For years in Russia you couldn’t get things at all unless you bought them on the black market, and everything was corrupt. How is such a people suddenly expected to understand the importance of abiding by laws in a just and fair society?
Fairplay can also be indifference. The real test is to faint out in the street and see how long it takes for a perfect stranger to stop and ask: “are you all right, Mister / Ma’am?” I’m sure the results would be surprising. I also wonder how well Nazi Germany would have fared in such a test and - say - the cowboys.
It might also be useful to remember that two English words are now current in all languages: fairplay and hooligan.
Maybe people who have attempted to live under a Communist regime are less likely to fall for crap about putting society’s interests before your own.
Reading the posts below, I come to the conclusion that they are nearly all cynics!
We Brits do have a great sense of fair play!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.