注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

N·格里高利·曼昆的博客

恒甫学社的学术性分支博客

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我
曼昆  

曼昆

网易考拉推荐

天生爱公平!  

2009-03-13 11:09:15|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

中文博主按

我的美女同事,喜欢这篇文章,她亲自动手翻译了这篇文章,我们向她表示由衷的敬意!现将这篇文章的原文和译文同时发出来,供大家欣赏。红笔的部分,是她要求我增加或修改的。我个人认为:这是一篇讨论“博弈”研究的文章,因此,game就是“博弈”,player就是“局中人”。

当然,在一些译作中,如那位翻译冯·诺伊曼大作的仁兄,就将player译成了“玩家”。“玩家”这个词,也得到了黄有光的戏谑性的赞同。当然,黄有光是个好玩的经济学家,他的戏谑,常含真义。从这个角度看,provider就是“发招者”,responder就是“接招者”。


Is our sense of fairness genetic?

Chapter 22 of my favorite economics textbook introduces students to the ultimatum game as part of a unit on behavioral economics. Users of the book might be interested in this new research out of MIT:
 我最喜欢的经济学教材第22章介绍了最后通牒的游戏,是行为经济学单元的一部分。教材使用者也许会对MIT的最新研究结果感兴趣:

Aninternational team of researchers including an MIT graduate student hasdemonstrated for the first time that genes exert influence on people'sbehavior in a very common experimental economic game.

一个包括了MIT研究生的国际化的研究团队首次证明了在很普通的经济博弈实验里,基因影响着人们的行为。

Traditionally,social scientists have been quite hesitant to acknowledge a role forgenes in explaining economic behavior. But a study by David Cesarini, aPh.D. student in MIT's Department of Economics, and by colleagues inSweden indicates that there is a genetic component to people'sperception of what is fair and what is unfair.

 传统上,社会科学工作者不太愿意承认基因可以用来解释经济行为。但是MIT经济系的博士研究生David Cesarini,,和他在瑞典的同事,共同研究发现,人们看待公平的观念受到了基因的影响。

The paper,published in the Oct. 1 advanced online issue of the Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, looked at the ultimatum game, in which aproposer makes an offer to a responder on how to divide a sum of money.This offer is an ultimatum; if the responder rejects it, both partiesreceive nothing.

 文章发表在国家科学学会学报的10月1号网络版(advanced online issue)。里面有一个最后通牒游戏,提议者(Provider)向应答者(responder)提议如何分一笔钱。提议只有一次,就是所谓的最后通牒;如果应答者拒绝接受这个提议,那么两个人就一分钱都得不到。

Becauserejections in the game entail a zero payoff for both parties, theoriesof narrow self-interest predict that any positive amount will beaccepted by a responder. The intriguing finding in the laboratory isthat responders routinely reject free money, presumably in order topunish proposers for offers perceived as unfair.

 由于拒绝的后果是双方所得为零,狭隘的自利理论预测应答者会接受任何数量为正的金额。实验却有趣地发现,应答者会惯常地选择拒绝,可能是为了惩罚提议方看似不公平的提议。

Tostudy genetic influence in the game, Cesarini and colleagues took theunusual step of recruiting twins from the Swedish Twin Registry, andhad them play the game under controlled circumstances. Becauseidentical twins share the same genes but fraternal twins do not, theresearchers were able to detect genetic influences by comparing thesimilarity with which identical and fraternal twins played the game.

为了研究基因的影响,Cesarini和同事用了绝妙的一招,从瑞典双胞胎登记处(Swedish Twin Registry)招聘到了一些双胞胎,并让他们参加可控环境下的游戏。由于同卵双生的双胞胎具有相同的基因,而异卵双生的就不是。研究者通过比较这两类双胞胎在游戏中的相似性就可以检测到基因的作用

Theresearchers' findings suggest that genetic influences account for asmuch as 40 percent of the variation in how people respond to unfairoffers. In other words, identical twins were more likely to play withthe same strategy than fraternal twins.

研究者发现在人们对不公平提议的不同反应中,基因可以解释40%的差异。换句话说,同卵双生的双胞胎比异卵双生的双胞胎更有可能采取相同的策略。

Thanks to Mark Thoma for pointing out the source article.
 多谢Mark Thoma,给我指点了文章的来源。


Meanwhile, over at his blog, George Borjas points us to a related article about chimps playing the ultimatum game:
同时,George Borjas 也在他的博客提到了一篇相关的文章,黑猩猩的最后通牒游戏。

Germanresearchers have demonstrated chimpanzees make choices that protecttheir self-interest more consistently than do humans.Researchers fromthe Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzigstudied the chimp's choices by using an economic game with two players.

德国研究人员,证明:相比于人类而言,在保护自我利益时,类人猿的行为,具有更强的一致性。莱比锡的Max Planck 进化人类学研究所的研究人员研究了类人猿的选择,他们使用了一个经济学的游戏,每个游戏有两个参与者。

In the game, a human orchimpanzee who receives something of value can offer to share it withanother.If the proposed share is rejected, neither player getsanything.Humans typically make offers close to 50 percent of thereward. They also reject as unfair offers of significantly less thanhalf of the reward, even though this choice means they get nothing.

游戏中,一个人或一只类人猿会收到一项有价值的东西,他们可以提议与另外的参与者(局中人)分享。如果提议遭到拒绝,两个参与者就会一无所获。人类一般会给出接近于50%的分配,同样他们也会拒绝明显不公平的分配,即使这样他们什么也得不到。

Thestudy, however, showed chimpanzees reliably made offers ofsubstantially less than 50 percent, and accepted offers of any size, nomatter how small. The researchers concluded chimpanzees do not show awillingness to make fair offers and reject unfair ones. In this way,they protect their self interest and are unwilling to pay a cost topunish someone they perceive as unfair.

然而,研究表明类人猿总会给出远远少于50%的分配提议,而另一方也会接受,无论这个部分有多小。研究人员总结到类人猿没有显露出提议公平分配或拒绝不公平分配的意愿。通过这个办法,他们保护了自我利益,不愿意为了惩罚他们认为的不公平而付出代价。

The study appeared in the Oct. 5 issue of the journal Science.

  研究发表在10月5号的《科学》杂志中。

The sense of fairness demonstrated by the ultimatum game is apparently genetic and intrinsically human.

最后通牒博弈证明:公平感,显然是基因性的,是人性之本。

(校译说明:human,是人性的意思。这个词,在尼采的那篇human, too human的大作中,最有味道。“人性,太人性”!)



原文
  评论这张
 
阅读(74)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017