Here is an experiment that might surprise you....

[Blackhatjack]

Pick ten(10) people at random. Tell each person you have a hypothetical question to ask which has only two choices.

Here is the question: " I will give you $10 in cash that you can put in your pocket and walk away OR you can refuse the $10 and I will give $100 to a homeless family. Your choice?"

Here is a follow up question: "Same scenario except I will give you $100 in cash OR if you refuse the $100 I will give the $100 to a homeless family. Would you change your answer?"

How would you expect most people to answer the first question?
How would you expect most people to answer the second question?
Would it make any difference which order the questions are asked?

What does this have to do with Democrats? Progressives? The role of Government? Republicans?

[bryant69]

1. Hmmm "I will give you $10 in cash that you will be unable to put in your pocket"

It's an interesting thought experiment. I would probably pass up the $10 in the first one but I don't know about the second one. Maybe yes maybe no.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Blackhatjack]

3. The experiment does not work unless you make one of the two choices in Q #2

[leveymg]

2. Interesting. I'll take a stab at this

I would guess most people would answer to give the homeless family the $100.
More or most people would take the $100 at even money.
Yes. More people would take the $10 if you offered even money first.

Now, give us the breakdown for party affiliation on this survey. Thanks.

[Blackhatjack]

5. I created this experiment to measure something --do you know what that might be?

As far as I know this experiment has never been carried out the results posted anywhere.

I will post later what I was trying to measure, but first I would like to see a few more responses.

[leveymg]

10. Whether personal generosity correlates w/stated political affiliation?

Betya $10 that this experiment (or something very similar) has been carried out and published, somewhere, if you look.

[BurtWorm]

18. You can keep the $10.

But right about now I could use the $100.

[patricia92243]

4. I wouldn't trust the person to actually give the $100 to the homeless. So, I would take it and give

it to the homeless myself.

[Blackhatjack]

6. LOL - I had not thought of that one!

[leveymg]

12. That thought occurred to me, as well.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Doesn't measure what you want it to measure....

... Because it takes no account of my belief (or lack thereof) that the homeless guy/family would waste the money with high probability.

[Blackhatjack]

9. No representation is made about how the money would be spent by anyone.

but you may be right about the experiment being flawed. I tried to put it in as few words as possible, and as such it is difficult to limit all the variables at play here.

[BlooInBloo]

11. In order for a difference in attitude between the two cases to be significant....

... One has to ensure the the *reason* for the change in attitude is significant.

Me believing that the homeless guy/family would go buy crystal meth would make it reasonable for a change in attitude concerning expectation in the two cases.

[Henryman]

19. Is there a significant difference between that probability...

....and the probability that you would waste the money?

[BlooInBloo]

21. But that's the question on which the expecation hinges, besides the actual value....

... The expectation in $10/$100 case is mostly insensitive to the perceived difference in probabilities because of the great disparity in values. Exactly the opposite in the $100/$100 case.

My only point is that until an assumption is made about those perceived probabilities, no conclusion regarding a difference in givingness between the two cases can be drawn, insofar as "fair weather altruism" is concerned.

It appears to be an attempt to measure "fair weather altruism" based solely upon dollar values, rather than *expected value* - which is a mistake in my view, and is why I called the thought-experiment "flawed".

[firefox_fan]

8. Most people would walk away thinking the guy is a psycho.

[canetoad]

13. Interesting

Choices: $10 for me or $100 to homeless
No thinking time even needed. Money to homeless.

$100 to me or to homeless.
Would have to stop and think, as I'm often on the bones of my bum, but if my financial state was status quo (food in the fridge and a roof over my head), then it's no skin off my nose if the free $100 went to homeless people.

Sometime in the early 90's I was at a suburban trash & treasure market and ran across Dr. Jim Cairns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cairns)who had long retired from politics and did a bit of lefty soapboxing and book selling. He had a sign up that said 'Free Money'. We had recently switched from paper two dollar notes to coins, and he was handing out the old notes which were still legal tender. I asked him why he was doing this and his answer was that it cost him practically nothing, because very few people refused to believe there was no catch at all. I took my 2 bucks and was honoured to have met him in peron.

[BillE]

14. If the questions are hypothetical

and the person being asked knows this, wouldn't they most likely give an answer that would make them look good?(i.e. give the $100 to the homeless in both situations) Question would be how would they act if they actually thought they would receive some money.

[Blackhatjack]

16. Excellent point, but IMHO you would need a boatload of money to do this experiment!

[BillE]

23. Well, if you limit it to 10 people

of each group $10 question and $100 Question), the max amount would be $2,000 (tax deductible), probably less if some take the $10. (though I guess $2,000 would be a boat load for most people)

My point was only that people react differently than what they "think" they will react in any type situation. Come to think of it, this would be a nice experiment (real reaction vs hypothetical)

[lvx35]

15. I'd refuse the $10, take the $100 nt

I'm po! What can I say?

[Blackhatjack]

17. Here are some of my ideas as to what this would measure....

This experiment was designed to measure what people consider to be a 'sacrifice.' (It does not matter whether the alternative is a homeless family, or any other worthwhile humanitarian cause like children's cancer research, famine relief, etc. What is important is that the alternative is considered to be a worthwhile cause.)

In this fact scenario, none of the decisionmakers 'earned' anything. They were offered a choice over how to dispose of a 'gift.'

The offer of $10 is often considered an 'insignificant amount' and most people do not exert substantial ownership rights over disposal of property they consider 'insignificant.'

The offer of $100 is often considered a 'significant amount' and most people do exert substantial owership rights over disposal of property they consider 'significant.'

In both cases, regardless of the amount of money offered to the decisionmaker($10 or $100) the homeless family would receive exactly the same amount($100).

For those who believe that contributing to worthwhile causes is important, it is a question of what 'sacrifice' they are willing to make to help others in need.

These results might make it easier to understand the differences between Democrats, Progressives & Republicans when it comes to tax cuts and tax credits.

Tax cuts and tax credits are not earned, they are given out by our Government.

Essentially everyone is asked to contribute a significant amount in federal, state, and local taxes each year. How will we ask Government is to distribute these assets?

In the experiment proposed, the Government makes the offer to each one of us, and we decide how the money is to be distributed. What is the level of 'sacrifice' we are willing to make to help others in need?

Can we draw a conclusion as to how Democratic, Progressive and Republican political platforms would influence the choices of the decisionmakers?

[Henryman]

20. The follow up question should be....

..."Same scenario except I will give you $10 in cash OR if you refuse the $10 I will give the $10 to a homeless family. Would you change your answer?"

[Az]

22. Humans are naturally altruistic

A number of studies of late have been exploring this aspect of humanity. It has to do with our social natures. Simply put our brains are wired to be empathetic to other humans.

We have a specific class of neurons called Mirror Neurons that internalize the actions and conditions of those we observe. Our brain interprets these observations as if they were happening to ourselves. Thus when someone smiles our mind internalizes the smile and we feel a compulsion to smile as well. If we see someone kicked in the groin we feel a compulsion to double over in pain along with them.

Thus the idea of treating others as we would be treated ourselves is more or less hard coded into our systems. It can be overridden by other impetus particularly if other motives for actions are taught or learned. But the instinct is there in all of us to help one another even at the expense of ourselves.

[Jed Dilligan]

24. What about "care not cash"?

If you offered the choice of giving a shit about me or giving a shit about a homeless family, I would gladly have you not give a shit about me.