Self-study
P1
In an experiment, two strangers are given the opportunity to share $100, subject to the following constraints: One person—the "proposer"—is to suggest how to divide the money and can make only one such proposal. ███ █████ ████████████ ██████████████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███████ ██████████████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███████ ████ ███████ █████████
Experiment ·
The Ultimatum Game
Two players can split $100. One player proposes how to split. The other player decides to accept or reject. If accept, the split is as proposed. If reject, both parties get nothing.
P2
████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ █████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ █ ████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ █ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ███
Results ·
Many offer to split 50/50 because it's "fair"
Results ·
Most offer to split a bit less than 50/50
Presumably the proposer thinks this is still within the realm of "fair." I get 60, you get 40. Still fair, right?
Results / Puzzling Phenomenon ·
A few offer less than 20% and most responders reject that offer
But why would they reject? Even if the offer is low, accepting means getting something (e.g., $20) whereas rejecting means getting nothing.
P3
████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██████ █████ ██████ ██ ████████████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██████ █████ █████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ███████ ███
Hypothesis ·
In-group support
The offer of a fair division is based on our ancestor's need for the support of a strong small group and so we want to treat each other fairly.
Critique ·
But this explains the wrong phenomenon.
We're not trying to explain the "fair" or "fair-ish" offers. We're trying to explain the "unfair" rejections.
P4
█ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ████████ █████████ █████████████ ███
Explanation ·
Our emotions are not evolved for one-time anonymous interations
Not sure what this means but will keep reading.
Explanation Details ·
Our emotions are evolved for repeated public interactions
We have a reputation to maintain. If we accept an "unfair" offer, then we are advertising to our social group that we can be treated unfairly. Hence, we instinctively reject such offers. Even though in the instance of the experiment, rejecting makes no sense and is actually to our detriment.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC)
24.
The passage implies that the █████████ ████ ██
a
one that requires ███ █████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ████ █████
The concept of trust isn’t brought up anywhere in the passage. So there’s no support that the author believes the Ultimatum Game requires strangers to trust each other.
b
responsible for overturning █ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ █████████
The author never suggests that the Ultimatum Game has overturned the assumption that people make economic decisions primarily out of rational self-interest. It’s possible that people still make economic decisions primarily out of self-interest, but with a few exceptions.
c
a situation that ███████ █████████████ ███████
The author doesn’t suggest that the results of the Ultimatum Game are unpredictable. In fact, the evidence shows we can predict at least some of the behavior — we get statistics about typical behaviors in P2. Two-thirds can be expected to offer between 40 and 50 percent. Only 4 in 100 offer less than 20 percent.
d
a type of █████████ █████████ ███████████
e
proof that our █████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██████
The author doesn’t view the Ultimatum Game as “proof” that our emotions have been shaped by living in small groups. Rather, the author offers the hypothesis that our emotions have been shaped by living in small groups as an explanation for the results of the Ultimatum Game. The behaviors observed in the Ultimatum Game are a phenomenon that the author tries to explain. But they are not proof of the author’s explanation.