No....

it's the Ultimtum Game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

So uh.  Right back at you I guess?

There are actually quite a number of games like that, including the prisoners dilema you mentioned and the dictator game.

The factor in this: When you ask people how they are skillwise or knowledgewise, or how they stand in quality, most people will rate themselves above average:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Add that factor, with a belief in fairness, or meritocracy, and that people should get what they deserve, and factor in the other things discussed here, and you run into a situation of disconent in a society.

This goes even for looks:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39044399/ns/health-skin_and_beauty/t/most-us-think-were-hotter-average-survey-says/

It looks like they are both connected somehow.  Funny, I was just discussing the prisoner's dilemma.  In order to tip it one way, organized crime ends up killing off informants that squeal to keep them quiet.  When they did that, then the law set up witness protection to get them to tell.

In regards to games, I remember one game done corporately where they broke up groups into teams, then the teams would end up sending a rep to vote X or Y.  If they all voted X, then they would all get a gain. If one or more voted Y while some voted X, then the ones voting X would lose, and the ones voting Y would get gains (less voting Y, the larger the gains).  As the game went on, with surprise multipliers being introduced, the groups would dig themselves in deeper and deeper holes.  The goal of the game was stated to be: "Score the most points".  This got interpreted as "Score more points than everyone else" rather than "Score the most points collectively".  I found the game to be very interesting.  I wish I could recall where that was from that they ran it.  Bonus points for finding more info on that.

Well yeah, they're all sociological tricks meant to judge how "logically" people act in situations.

The dictator game was what was used in the above "Atheist vs Religious" study.

Gameshow Network used to have a show based on an altered Prisoenrs Dilema called Friend or Foe.

Both vote Friend, they split.

Both voe Foe, they get nothing.

One votes friend, the other Foe, the one who voted foe gets the money.

So basically it was almost ALWAYS both people voting foe unless one of the contestants was like an attractive girl who could trick the dude she was against or someone had a really good sob story for why they needed the money.

Ah, I'd never actually heard of that... probably because I don't think it's much of a "game" in this regard.

But when I look at the experimental results section, here's what I see:

"In industrialized cultures, people offer "fair" (i.e., 50:50) splits, and offers of less than 20% are often rejected. One limited study on monozygotic and dizygotic twins claims that genetic variation can affect reactions to unfair offers, though the study failed to employ actual controls for environmental differences."

In other words, your assertion that people typically reject the offer isn't quite accurate. It's also not really a realistic game, since there's no ongoing effects of a rejection or acceptance. If someone were to be put in a position of only being the second player, and never being identified (always anonymous), they would almost certainly always accept whatever is offered, because there's no ongoing advantage to rejection.

The big irony, here, is that the Ultimatum Game was actually played by US's Republican party quite recently. They were offered a rather even-handed deal (regarding the debt ceiling and related things), and they rejected it, practically out of spite. It's irrational (indeed, the only rational action of the second player in the ultimatum game as described by wikipedia is to accept whatever offer is made, unless they are offered nothing), and it's harmful, but it's what they did. Of course, in reality, it's an iterated version of the game where sides take turns making offers, and the Republicans were basically trying to get a situation where they could get 100% of what they wanted by rejecting any deal that gave anything less.

Yeah, I could see that.

People thinking they're better then average, but seeing there outcome as average, (regardless of whether they're doing better or worse) could indeed lead to perceived unfairness even if there wasn't any.

I suppose the problem is, most people care too much.

Me, i'm happy with what I got, and for a western society it really ain't a lot.  Given the choice between getting more money or working less....

I'd take working less more often then not... only reason I wouldn't is need for a retirement fund.

Are you not argueing that some poeple should pay more than others, ie the rich should have taxes raised? The government should stick to what the private secotr can not reasonbly supply, which would be a police/fire force, a judicail system, and an army to protect the people. Everything else should be left to private secotr that has incentives to increase productivity. Instead of the government where the incentive is to get the most money for your department. It would be a different story if the US government was capable of spening tax payer money well. But they don't, its wasted all over tha place so its best they don't have it. I am allways reasonable. Just because you dont agree with my veiwpoint does not make it unreasonable. Taking peoples money is the same as forcing them to do things, it removes their ability to make choices with their money. If the reasoning for doing so is for the btterment of the country, they why not take it a step further. Where do you draw the line?

I'd written a decent response, here, but stupid Opera decided to interpret a mouse movement as a "back" command, so I lost it. So this'll be a somewhat abridged version of what I was going to say.

First of all, are you honestly saying that support for taxing rich people more is akin to LABOUR CAMPS is a reasonable comparison? Really? Seriously?

Second of all, the reason why we tax the rich more is because they have more. The communist way of putting it is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Of course, good government is a healthy balance between capitalism and communism (although conservatives rarely recognise this fact), so the rich get to keep a lot of their money. And that's how it should be.

But the fact is, nobody got rich without the help of society. Elizabeth Warren said it so well...

You made a lot of money with hard work? Good for you. But the only reason you had that chance is because of those who came before you and paid the money necessary to establish the infrastructure, the educational system, the health system, the welfare system, the police and the fire service, the army, etc. So you get to keep most of your money. But you pay a reasonable proportion of your money to support those who come after you.

It's just like how, when you're growing up, your parents pay for all sorts of things for you, trying to give you the best upbringing they can. They don't do it to get paid back. Their expectation is that, when you have kids of your own, you will try to do even better than they did. Society works on this basis, and if you remove it, the system falls apart. Economic growth has come on the backs of things done by government. This isn't to say that government hasn't done very bad things - they most certainly have. But the net effect has been positive, and without government activities, the economy would be stagnant.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the American tax system isn't highly flawed anyway. You tax total world profits of companies, rather than local American profits, which drives companies to base themselves in other countries, where they only tax local profits. You tax the poor (and even if the net tax is zero due to tax offsets, etc, it's just more bureaucracy that isn't necessary) - in Australia, those earning less than $6000 a year pay 0% tax. You charge a "social security tax" - in Australia, we have a system called "Superannuation", which is comparable to America's concept of "private accounts"... and then we have a backup pension system for those who would otherwise fall through the cracks.

And I'm not saying that Government hasn't been highly wasteful. Do you know what the solution for that is? Force government to be more careful with how it spends its money. Wholesale cutting of important and essential expenditures just to "make government smaller" is not unlike cutting off your arm because you're overweight - sure, you'll weigh less, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

And no, "restrict to police/fire, army, and a judicial system" is not sensible. That's very much like saying that the only part of the body that really matters is the head and the right arm - cut everything else off. The private system cannot provide education to all students - the poor cannot afford to pay for education, and education is necessary to give them what they need to be capable of lifting themselves out of poverty. The private system cannot provide health coverage to all people - again, the poor cannot afford it, and have a look at how America's health system treats those with "pre-existing conditions". The private system cannot provide and maintain a road system and public transport system that ensures that everyone is able to move around the country reasonably. The private system does not, for instance, maintain appropriate water and power services to poor areas.

America should look to Australia for an idea of how to make it work well (although some right-wing governments have been actively trying to screw with it). Here in Australia, we have a strong public health system, backed up by a private health system. We have a strong public education system, backed up by a private education system. We tax the rich more than America does, and the poor pay 0% tax. And Australia is the only western nation that didn't go into recession when the GFC hit. Australia routinely outperforms America in terms of nominal per capita GDP (according to the IMF, for instance, Australia has the sixth highest nominal GDP per capita, at US$65,477, compared with the US in 14th, at US$48,387).

It's the government's job to make society better for everyone. If you don't feel that government is doing its job, you don't try to demolish it, you try to *fix* it.

By the way, I'm betting that you're the kind of person who goes "government bureaucracy means that government is less efficient than private companies" - the thing is, it's not true. Medicare/Medicaid is far more economical than any private health insurer. Private educational institutions typically have to charge far more in fees than public ones receive from the government in order to get comparable outcomes.

Let me put it another way. Government-run services and infrastructure have the advantage of preventing duplication (assuming that they are run correctly, of course). Consider the pharmaceutical industry. Ten different drug companies will be funding ten different private research institutes (or their own internal research teams) to develop various drugs. The first one to come up with a new drug to, say, treat alzheimers, gets a patent, and charges exorbitant fees. Why are they exorbitant? Because in effect, they don't just have to charge to compensate for the money that *they* spent developing the drug, but also what the *other* companies spent. Why? Because on other drugs that they were researching, it was one of the other companies that managed to get there first and patent it, and the company has to charge enough to profit despite those losses.

Government, on the other hand, is centralised. If government funds the research, as happens here in Australia a lot, the ten institutes collaborate, and create the new drug faster, and with less duplication of effort. And what's more, the balance of research is far more reasonable. Less time is spent developing a new cure for impotence, and more is spent trying to find a cure for that rare but devastating virus that won't be profitable, but will be much appreciated by those unlucky enough to get it. A good example is Leukaemia.

As I said, this is how government is meant to work. If it's not doing as it is meant to, then fix it. Don't depend on Republicans or Democrats - both sides are more interested in maintaining the status quo, because the problems energise both sides, thereby enabling them to maintain their grip on the system. Any partisan party will face the same problem, which is why the Green party and the Libertarians aren't any better.

It's just like everything else - moderation is key. Note that moderation doesn't mean centrist. Sometimes one side will have a better solution, and sometimes the other side will. When republicans rail against pork barrelling, I agree with them. The "pork barrel" problem in America is atrocious, and is no doubt a major drain on government finances. Subsidies for huge corporations are another example (although elected Republicans don't actually mention these, because those huge corporations are major donors - hence the problem).

An interesting fact is that over 50% of the income tax collected goes to pay for defense (Current military spending, and payment of past military expenses.) It certainly makes sense that rich people should pay more taxes as they stand to lose much more from under-funded defense, and a hostile takeover over the country than poor people do.

.... no it doesn't.

IF youa dded up Department of Defence, VA AND OTHER and coutned it all as that.... (Which it obviously isn't) You still aren't there.

Note social security is actually also paid through income taxes, because soical security money is used to buy US bonds... which is then used for defense spending/intrestest.... etc.

Taxes definitly favor the poor more.   Which is fine... because they should.