Are We More Rational Than Our Fellow Animals?
We usually accept without argument the notion that man is at the top of the animal hierarchy. After all, only mammals have a neocortex – the most recently evolved part of the brain and the center of higher mental functions – and ours is the most advanced variation, so it makes sense that we’d be at a higher stage of development.
But is this true? Does the neocortex always make us more rational than other animals?
Most of the time, the answer is yes. For instance, it’s thanks to our neocortex that we are able to plan for the future, something that animals have a hard time doing. (They are even worse at saving than we are!)
Still, this isn’t always the case, as the following chimpanzee experiment suggests. In “Chimpanzees are rational maximizers in an ultimatum game,” researchers Keith Jensen, Josep Call, and Michael Tomasello looked into how chimps fare at one of the classic tests of human rationality, the ultimatum game.
In the human version of this game, a “proposer” is handed some money, say $10, and must suggest a division of the sum for himself and another participant. This other person, the “responder,” can then either accept or reject the offer. If he chooses to accept the division, both participants receive their share; if he opts to reject it, neither gets compensated.
Now, if we were to go by the traditional economic model of man as a self-interested rational maximizer, we would suppose that the proposers would always suggest a division that maximized his self-interest (an $9/$1 division) and that the responders would always accept a nonzero offer ($1 may not be $9, but it’s still better than nothing).
Except, this is not what happens. Research has shown that we human beings not only consider how best to maximize our compensation, but we also factor in such notions as cooperation and fairness when we make our decisions. For example, responders in the ultimatum game will often reject a monetary division that is particularly unfair for them (such as a $8/$2 division) – even when this comes at their own cost (they lose the $2, after all). This behavior is of course wonderfully human — but it is not part of the standard rational model.
Chimpanzees, however, go about the ultimatum game (which involves divisions of raisins in their case) without giving fairness any thought. In this experiment, the researchers found that the chimp responders tended to accept any nonzero offer, however unfair. And conversely, the chimp proposers rarely suggested a fair division, choosing instead to maximize their own share.
In this case, then, animals are more rational than we are. Whereas we’re willing to lose a couple bucks so that the other guy gets punished for his inequitable offer, chimps only act according to what will guarantee them the most raisons.
This curious turning-of-tables suggests that we might want to think differently about the neocortex. Overall, we’re better off having it, as without our sense of right and wrong, we would lack empathy and the ability to reinforce societal rules. Yet, in certain contexts, the neocortex can cause us not to maximize our self-interest. Evolution, then, is a mixed blessing: it makes us better some things, and worse at others.
Is the chimpanzee behavior really more rational? Human social constructs like fairness are geared towards long term benefits. The chimp is maximizing its short-term gains, at the potential expense of long-term gains. When politicians, CEOs, and investors do this we accuse them of not thinking ahead. As you said, chimps are worse at saving than we are.
As pointed out by Barry: Isn’t cooperation better? Evolutionnarily, we won—so we must be doing most basic things right.
Plus, you are assuming that the individual is the proper unit to consider human evolution; although most would agree with you, I’d have to point out that larger organism and not evolved amœbas, but evolved version of amœba lumps, where cells specialised. The neo-cortex can be interpreted as the second generation of scale-shift: like inter-cell biochemicals allowed larger organism to emerge, society and its rules transformed us from lumps of individuals, or tribes, into structured societies with specialised individuals, including some who won’t reproduce, structurally.
@Barry You nailed it. Politicians = Chimps!
On a more serious note, is maximizing really more rational? Sharing and cooperation are more than empathy and goodwill. Mutual aid can result in synergies where the output of the synergy exceeds the output of the combined individuals.
Do poloticians really equal chimps. I sa no! Politicians will tell the proposer how he or she is to divide the sum while they keep all of their sum for themselves. Its all about them telling you how you should be rational while they are not.
Barry,
The issue is not the act of sharing equally, its the refusing to receive a lesser share, the non-zero offer.
Were the chimps ever explained the rules? Maybe the 2nd chimp was accepting 1 raisin because there was one raisin in front of him, and perhaps didnt know that if he refused, the other chimp would not have raisins as well.
The person who gives up $2 is behaving rationally, if you account for all their value judgements in the situation. For instance, the person who gives up $2 in order to deprive another of $8 values the application of that punishment to the other more than $2. At some point, $20/$80, $200/$800, $2/$8 million, etc. I imagine they would choose differently.
Well, I just tried this question on my 12 year old, who is often obsessed with fairness issues (especially when it comes to his brother!) When I offered him $1 so that I kept $9, without hesitation he took it. When I asked why, he said “at least I’m getting something!” So maybe he’s more chimp-y and/or more rational? Do adults get more into “punishment” and for what purpose? Thanks for some more food for thought!
I was thinking along the same lines as nat. I don’t have the article in front of me to have a look at the procedure, but I’m having trouble imagining how one might give instructions for the ultimatum game to a chimp.
If punishing stimulate “pleasure” senses in the brain, the revealed preference of this choice indicates that the utility from punishing exceeds the utility from $2 (any unfair allocation)- so brains with neocrotex is a more complex maximizer than brains without.
I am wondering if this experiment on chimps taking the nonzero offer versus the “punishing” for unfair proposal in the case of humans is true for all cultures? If the neocortex is the organ which gives superior intelligence to humans it is also because behaviors and values such as empathy or fairness need to be learned from various rules established by different models of societies, therefore the test can be biased if this cultural factor is not taken into account.
This article implies that chimps might be BETTER at acting rationally. But obviously a human is perfectly capable of telling you the rational strategy, and simply CHOOSES to take other considerations into account (e.g. fairness, in the example given)
As the oft-lauded Barry points out, fairness is beneficial (and, in fact, therefore rational) in the long run because it creates a reputation that you won’t put up with an unfair deal. In the future that reputation will get you better deals.
If (human) subject participants failed to understand that they were sinking a deal for no benefit, then it would be fair to question whether chimps are more rational. But it’s a major mix-up to confuse lack of rationality with a choice not to use ONLY rationality.
My question is, how do you teach a chimp how to give up ANY raisins? If I was the chimp, i would be all “Really? 10, thats not even a mouthful biatch! You holding out on me?”
My rational opinion: The Responder is used to gathering his own food, so they think “Hey, thanks for the freebie.” So it is accepted.
Dan,
Ants know how to save!
-
Devang
I think you are way off on this one. The short-term maximizing strategy is not the most rational choice. If that one instance is looked at in isolation, it may seem strange to give up $2. But given a larger social context, “punishing” individuals who do not fairly can lead to a greater long term benefit.
Imagine playing the ultimatum game over and over again. The chimp in the experiment might accept that single raisin every time. After 100 plays, it would have gained 100 raisins. A human player would refused to take anything less than $3 of $10 dollars would stand to get a much greater gain (assuming that the other player was rational!) — the first couple of rounds, both players might get nothing, but then the other player would likely increase the size of the gift (purely out of self-interest), and the original player might end up with around 95 x $3 = $285.
(Imagining myself playing the game, I’d probably start accepting $4, and then part-way through I’d stop, and accept only $5.)
Cate:
Who had the original $10 in your example with your child? If you were simply keeping $9 of your own $10, that’s a very different example, and accepting the $1 is a no-brainer. If your child refused the $1, what would have happened to the $10? Presumably, you would have kept it all.
I just finished reading “Predictably Irrational.” I actually read it because I’m a Health (Radiation) Physicist, and have witnessed all kinds of irrationality related to the risks of radiation exposure, and was hoping for some insights into how to turn around the last 50 years of mis/disinformation on radiation related risks.
What I found, however, was a very fun ride through everyday human experience, which may or may not help inform me as to how to take an esoteric risk assessment and make it truly accessible and understandable to the public.
I also have a couple of observations I’d like to share. The first is with respect to the typical reaction to “FREE!” Throughout the discussion of our obsession with “FREE!” I felt like something was missing.
In the end, I came to the conclusion that assessing the net benefit from an interaction does not adequately capture the (subconscious) calculation we make or should make. There are two distinct calculations going on: 1) How much pain will I have to endure (what will it cost me), and 2) How much pleasure will I get (what will I gain), and the “net” result does not seem to be determinative in our decisions. If there is no pain (no cost), that’s a completely different equation than one where there is some pain (cost). That is to say that if there is no cost, then there is a guaranteed net benefit, so why take the risk of incurring a negative balance by making a choice that incurs some cost (however small).
In the Hershey kiss vs. Swiss Chocolate, I thought, if I had to choose between 1 shot (stick of a needle) to get a Kiss, and 2 shots (sticks of a needle) to get the Swiss Chocolate, I’d take two, because once I have one, two means nothing, but if I have a choice of no shot (no pain, no cost) for a Kiss, and only one shot for the Swiss chocolate, I’d take the Kisses every time. I don’t care about the “net” benefit. The fact that one option has no downside always means it is a net positive, and it doesn’t matter that the alternative is a “higher” net positive. When there is no pain (cost) that’s always a win.
The other comment I wanted to make was with respect to the section on “social norms” vs. “market norms.” I actually have two personal observations here: 1) if I’m paid to do something, I’m obligated to do it; I have in some ways given up my free will in exchange for money, and this makes me feel like I HAVE to do it, even if I no longer want to, which I don’t like; and, 2) if I do something for free, out of love, concern, empathy, sympathy, altruism (if such a thing really exists), then it is “priceless,” and to put a price on it demeans it.
The second point is brought home by the Mastercard (TM) commercials: 1) Turkey, $.99/lb, 2) cranberries, $1.10/bag, 3) Sweet potatoes, $.45/lb, 4) the love grandma put into making the dinner…priceless. Please don’t try to pay me for that, because (as the Sensai master says in Chapter 4, if I charged you for it, you could not afford me.
Anyway, I loved the book. And, if you also liked it, might I suggest trying “The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives.” It’s a statistical perspective on our conjoined lives, and just as interesting (in my opinion) as the perspective shared in “Predictably Irrational.”
Sincerely,
Barbara L. Hamrick
Marc : I did explain it as the experiment did…that i did not receive anything if my son did not choose to accept my offer.
I do agree with you that a different perspecitve–seeing long-term effects should this type of option continue–can be viewed as rational as seeing it as a short-term gain. So it’s not effectively “punishing”, but merely taking into account future possibilities and mutuality considerations. (at least that’s what i thought you were trying to say!)
I wonder if the results of this study are biased towards human action in a particular culture, and whether individuals in a different culture–or subculture–that values “fairness” disparately would react in a correspondingly different manner. For instance, I think individuals from impoverished worlds with generational sparsity and norms of corruption who have accepted a “take-what-you-can-get” attitude would choose more $9/$1 outcomes. As already stated, $5/$5 results reflect cultures with fairness as an established value. Taken a step further, this measurement is skewed toward certain socio-economic cultural environments, as not a few psychology studies are.
I want to create an exparament for this game that can test its influence on real world decisions.
In the bare bones ultimatum game the players play once and can’t communicate.
In situations where Player 2 can talk before the division is made, there are much fairer results. “If you don’t give me 50/50 I will reject it.” forces the choice back on the divider.
Also, when the game is played multiple times the assumptions is that humans will reject the offer in order to get a more beneficial future offer.
The ultimatum game played with these two conditions represents (more closely than the original) relationships like long-term vendor-customer, or employer-employee.
I’d like to try
1. Original game (control)
2. Original game, but the instructions are presented like this “Player 2 will be deciding whether or not you both will get this money. Player 1, you must split the money between the two of you, and ask Player 2 if he/she accepts the offer. If he/she does, then y7ou both keep the money. If not, you both get nothing” to see if a change in the perception of power will change the split.
3. Play the original game with original description, expect tell players they will be playing multiple times.
4. Play with description from #2 multiple times.
5. Allow players to communicate during the division process (original description)
6. Allow communication with description from #2.
Another fun way to flip the power would be to impose a real world relationship in reverse circumstances. “BigName inc. wants to offer you a job. Please list your desired salary here. If the company feels it’s a good salary for you they’ll hire you. If they reject your offer, you won’t get the job.”
Another fun version would be a collective bargaining model of the game, where a “boss” declares a split for many individuals at once, say 10 individual deals at a $9/$1 split. The experiment could be run where the “workers” (the ones being offered the deal) hear what each others’ deals are, and a third version where they can communicate with each other.
I think that these experiments would give valuable insight into how an employer can keep employees happy, and how far employees can expect their peers to go in a collective bargaining setting.
Oops. I misspelled “experiment”. How embarrassing.
A man in need will not turn down a dollar.
A man of comfort can afford to play the ‘punish the unfair’ game.
The less affluent a person is, or feels, the more likely they will accept an unfair bargain because they have an immediate need to be fulfilled. They realize their is no long term benefit if they cant survive the short term.
Example: It is far easier for a pawn shop to charge usury rates of interest as opposed to to bank simply because of the clientèle.
The more need we have the more likely we will make decisions that resemble that of need satisfying ape. I would be curious to see if a well/overfed ape would act more human like.