Hacker News Reader

Comment by zeraholladay | Hacker News Reader

Question: "Even though the value was comparable [cans of sodas and a dollar] --and thus the situations were supposed to be equivalent--people responded in opposite ways. Why is that?"

Answer: Sane people leave six packs of sodas in refrigerators so the sodas get cold and in case those with access to the refrigerator get thirsty. The old idiom applies: treat others as you would want to be treated.

Dollar bills generally do not belong in refrigerators. Thus there is no social norm reasonably explaining the purpose of the dollars in the refrigerator. The researcher needs to provide an explanation as to why the situations are supposed to be equivalent.

View on HN

Well said. Similarly, if I found 6 dollars in a parking lot with nobody around, I'd probably pick it up. But if I found a 6 pack of soda in the parking lot, there's no way I'm picking it up, except perchance to throw it away.

It said the dollar bills were placed in the same randomly selected refridgerators as the six packs. If it was independant it would be weird(er), but if I saw money sitting in a fridge it would mean exactly one thing: someone is paying someone back from taking liberties with food. To me it's implicit.

So, I think the experiment was more of an experiment in mind fuckery. Imagine, coke's show up-- sweet I'll have one (assuming I didn't have a ten commandments frig-magnet). I drink a soda, and after an hour or day they're all gone. (Maybe I only drank one.)

The the next day,... oh I guess I would need to know what the timeline was on the experiment... but say I take that leap to finish (I give it under 10% that this happened in the same weak though.) I, having only drank one soda, know someone else might've drank five. And perhaps, they, the 'other(s)' felt guilty when no more cokes showed up.

Basically I wouldn't touch some one's reparations, unless I knew it was me. And with my partial guilt, I wouldn't touch that sin money... I might throw in a buck.

That's an interesting question, but you can replicate this experiment in a variety of ways and see the same result. My mother is a nurse, and she has a saying that goes something like, "Leave a $50 bill in the break room, and nobody will touch it, but leave a plate of brownies and they're gone before you can tell people to take one."

Since it won't cost you much, try this: Leave a box of pastries or chocolates somewhere people congregate (the lunch room, a common kitchen, etc. Probably not on the street :). Count how many are left the next day. At another point, leave the cash equivalent. Count how much is missing at the end of the day.

In the vast majority of cases, the food goes (in the absence of explicit permission), but the money doesn't.

Don't plates of food carry implicit permission? One person wouldn't bring a plate full of brownies if she intended it only for herself.

And if she did she would make a note saying so.

Ok, here's another example. Only a few people I know, a small handful, have had roommates take money from them. However, virtually everyone I know has had a roommate take food from them (or has taken food from a roommate) without permission.

But the problem is still the same. The statement that "people have an irrational sense of logic because they would take food from a roommate, but not money" is still incorrect.

Of the 15 or so roommates I've had in my life, 13 or 14 would have almost always answered "yes" to the question "hey, can I take XXX from the fridge and eat it." Whereas fewer of them would have answered the same if I had asked for money. Therefore, the decision to take something from another person is heavily influenced by the anticipated response of that person (and therefore not as illogical as the researcher is concluding).

Would your roommates refuse to lend you 5 dollars? If not, why is it wrong to take the 5 dollars from his desk, or take money he left in a common area? Under your reasoning it would perfectly fine, common, even.

"I'm sure he won't mind if I just take a few dollars," seems more wrong than "I'm sure he won't mind if I drink one of his fancy beers/soymilk smoothies/etc".

I think you're missing my point. Yes, it seems more wrong to take money than to take a drink from the fridge.

The researcher in this study is saying "aha! taking a drink is exactly the same as taking money, therefore human beings are illogical thinkers in this scenario!" But it is in fact logical - it's based on the anticipated response of the person whose money/drink you're taking (and if you don't know how it belongs to - the general expectations of people in your society/community).

Also, I'm sure that there are societies in which people never take drinks from other people, and consider it the same as taking money. A comprehensive study would have covered more than an American college campus.

No, I don't think that is what he is saying at all. He is saying that standard economics treats the two as being the same, because it reduces things to their dollar value. The experiment identifies an area where standard economic assumptions breakdown, which means that you can't use standard economic theories to determine the result.

You're correct in that the dollars are out of place while the soda cans are not.

A better experiment might be this: Leave the door to a locker open, with a few items of clothing to show that it belongs to someone. In one version leave an open jar of candy. In the other, an open jar of quarters.

I suspect that some of the candy would disappear while far fewer of the quarters would go.

Of course, the reason for that is that the candy is much more tempting than the quarters, though less that 25 cents per piece.

I disagree, but only because I believe people would consider candy that's /already opened/ by someone else to be "tainted" in some way.

you're right - I forgot that even name brand soda bought in 12 packs or more cost much less than a dollar per can (I think it's less than 50 cents for a 12 pack in cali)

Still I feel that if they modified their experiment to have quarters instead of dollar bills (or upgraded the cans to mini-bottles while keeping the dollars), it may have had the same result

Even if cans were worth a dollar apiece, six dollars would be worth much more than a 6-pack. Cash is considerably more liquid -- you can't walk into J.C. Penney and trade a few 6-packs for a pair of slacks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com