Cultural Implications

Economics Political Theory
1

Culture, the common values shared by a people, have an effect on their actions. What values and cultural matters do you think contribute most to the problems of the world, whether it be in government, psychology, or anything. Obviously, "Government must rule everything!', is a very bad stance and is most definitely harmful, but I’m looking for more… insightful observations about culture. Any ideas?

If you could clearly outline the paticular value, how it implicates it, and the problem of said implication, it would be greatly appreciated.

2

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;312/5781/1767

Abstract for that article is nonsense. If you have access, read the data. I’ll summarize.

His group and he played the Ultimatum Game in many different places: A person given ten dollars must decide what proportion to split the money in. If the second person refuses, they both get nothing.This is, of course, costly, because the second person when he refuses what is free money gets nothing.

What they found was that propensity for costly punishment varies very greatly across the world.

What I find interesting/disturbing is that people in the United States, and many parts of the developed world, often require must closer to a 50% split than so-called ‘primitive-communists’, such as amazonian tribes. In other words, people in the US think there is a Right to Fairness in income distribution, such they they refuse free money, just so other people won’t get more money than they do.

In other words, students in the US are increasingly acting like communists in anonymous situations, whereas tribesmen in Africa and South America think costly punishment is silly in anonymous situations. A total reverse often to what Marx predicted. (Henrich has another article that is more revealing in the American Economic Review, because he asks people why they did or did not refuse a particular split).

“Fairness”, with all its implications, against free market varies very widely. Its a self-reinforcing cultural norm, but only where it exists. Furthermore, instead of forwarding cooperation, we see it prevents it.

[If you really want to a debate between a United States “fairness” advocate and a response, see Stephan Marglin’s essay, What do Bosses Do? and David Landes’ response, What do Bosses Really Do?]

3

This reminds me of a few things really.

Firstly of sort of a worker vs owner idea. The idea of hating your superiors because they make so much more then you, and passive agressively acting out against him.

Secondly, positive rights, although thats another story.

The most useful bit about the story you mentioned, and the idea of trying to destroy your employers, is that it is inherantly self destructive. A quicker proof of somethings irrationality does not exist. Not an urge to profit, not an urge to change the world to ones liking, but an urge to destroy the world, and as an immediate side effect, yourself, all out of spite due to some percieved unfairness that is quite unfounded in reality.

I will agree, such a motivation (which seems the easiest way to boil down this point) is extremely destructive, but it is not the only kind of psychosis around, although it may be the most childish.