Everybody Loves Moving Money
Aug 13, 2007
This is a story about some economists who set out to study altruism and ended up discovering something very frightening about human nature.
It's like they're describing the students at my university!
This is a story about some economists who set out to study altruism and ended up discovering something very frightening about human nature.
It's like they're describing the students at my university!
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
They think THAT is scary?
Sometimes I think conservatives are a different fucking species.
Posted by: Josh Scholar | Aug 14, 2007 at 07:04 PM
Welcome to the welfare state! This explains the enduring popularity of socialism, communism, anarchism, and other assorted flavors of stupidity, despite the reduced freedom and lower standards of living in societies that practice nonsense.
For this reason, as a self-described classical liberal, I have had to learn and accept that I hold a minority opinion in this world. It is so easy to be generous when you're being generous with someone else's money!
Posted by: Classical Liberal | Aug 14, 2007 at 08:19 PM
Anyway it's bullshit. No one forced the experimenters to give away money, no one forced the University to give money for the experiment...
Really the article is an illogical, emotional rant. If the money for the experiment was wasted, then it was wasted no matter what the test subjects did with it. If it wasn't wasted, then no one took the money unethically.
And if science isn't funded then that causes problems too.
Posted by: Josh Scholar | Aug 14, 2007 at 09:24 PM
You're missing the point Josh. It's not money "wasted" in the experiment that's scary. The scary part is what this experiment reveals about human nature. Namely that people are generally unwilling to give away their own money, but are more than happy to give away other peoples money. And while this result is no surprise, it's scary to think that these people get to contribute their opinions to our national fiscal policies.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 14, 2007 at 10:31 PM
It doesn't prove anything.
I would guess that since humans are social animals we have an instinct to share - a little.
In the wild it would be sharing food.
If it's not scary when a lion or a monkey does it, why is it scary when a human being does? It's as if property is your one and only value. And that would be pathetic.
Posted by: Josh Scholar | Aug 15, 2007 at 03:06 AM
Anyway, the assumption of the article is wrong in this way.
If I were a test subject, I would have left money behind too. Not in order to impress the experimenters - I've always hated poses of piety and attempts to improve social standing...
Let me interrupt this with an example from when I was ten or so. A man at the corner store gave me too much change for a candy - I remembered his bitterness about kids who tried to steal candy from his store and I corrected him and gave him his change back - because I thought that breaking a bit of that bitterness would make him happier and more optimistic. I felt enjoy feeling like I've brightened someone's day and helped make society a little more civilized...
So I would have left a little money behind because I enjoy the thought that someone else will enjoy what my action.
That's not about raising social status. That's not about impressing the experimenters. I would do it for the other subject knowing that the subject would not know who I am, because my own imagination will be a more pleasant place for it. I will enjoy the thought that I made someone happier.
If that scares you, then you deserve more pity than I can muster.
Posted by: Josh Scholar | Aug 15, 2007 at 03:19 AM
And please forgive my typos. I'm a few ales down tonight. I meant to type "I enjoy feeling like I've brightened someone's day and helped make society a little more civilized..."
Sorry I forgot to delete a word when I edited.
Posted by: Josh Scholar | Aug 15, 2007 at 03:21 AM
Also, you may say that the situations weren't comparable, but I think they were. At 10 I knew perfectly well that the extra 50 cents the man gave me was nothing to him, and a lot to me - but I placed a higher value on optimism, hope and the like than I did on the money, even thought it was on another man's mental state rather than my own.
People who think they can evaluate transactions between human beings on the basis of monetary value alone are so shallow and so wrong that they're hardly worth the effort of considering I think.
Posted by: Josh Scholar | Aug 15, 2007 at 03:28 AM
Uh, would you have given this old man 50 cents if you knew that it would mean that a self-righteous bully would grab one of your friends, steal his lunch money, and say "the old man deserves this, you greedy jerk!" ?
You felt good giving some of YOUR OWN (sorry, I don't mean to "yell" but I can't make this field do italics) money--that's good. I assume you didn't force anyone to give him their money so you would feel good. If you had forced someone else to "give" of their money, that would be bad.
No one is saying that voluntarily giving of your own resources is wrong, but rather that "giving" others' resources is wrong.
Posted by: Classical Liberal | Aug 15, 2007 at 04:53 AM
The experimenters didn't offer the test subjects the option of giving the money back to the university, their donors, the government or (how?) the taxpayers, thus the stupid rant about how they were choosing to steal money from the above to give to the other people was fucking wrong!
They only the choice of keeping money or leaving it for another subject - and those were the only choices.
If they had given subjects the choice of giving the money back to the university or funding agency, I bet that 3/4 of the students would have laughed and checked that box.
You have absolutely no basis for the conclusions you're getting all emotional about. None at all.
Posted by: Josh Scholar | Aug 15, 2007 at 01:28 PM
"If they had given subjects the choice of giving the money back to the university or funding agency, I bet that 3/4 of the students would have laughed and checked that box."
followed by
"You have absolutely no basis for the conclusions"
Irony, thy name is Josh.
Forget it man, we're obviously not speaking the same language here.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 15, 2007 at 04:27 PM
Well at least my hypotheticals are explicitly hypothetical.
These people weren't "giving away other people's money" they were given a choice between taking an insignificant amount of money that they hadn't asked or worked for or leaving it for someone else...
They were not given the option of "giving away" other people's money or not - that's a faulty interpretation because:
1. They didn't "take" money, it was offered.
2. There was no option to give the money back
So your description isn't hypothetical like mine, it's simply wrong.
Posted by: Josh Scholar | Aug 15, 2007 at 05:21 PM
In a way the experiment was a bit like those churches in poor neighborhoods where a person can put money into the collection plate or take it out. Sure is scary that some people don't take money out of the collection plate, right?
Posted by: Josh Scholar | Aug 15, 2007 at 05:27 PM
What?
Ok, you're really out of 'er now. Your example has absolutely zero to do with the experiment, AND it appears you don't even understand the second part of the experiment at all. I suggest re-reading the article.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 16, 2007 at 06:32 AM