Punu Posté 23 octobre 2005 Signaler Posté 23 octobre 2005 Attention, en anglais "liberal" se traduirait par "gauchiste" en français. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47307-2004Aug7 Unconventional Wisdom column By Richard Morin, morinr@washpost.com 2004.8.8 Forget what you've heard about bleeding heart liberals or compassionate conservatives. When it comes to trusting others and acting for the common good, neither political party or ideology has a corner on generosity. That's what Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri and his two co-authors found in a survey of college students, using two experimental "games" that are frequently used by economists and political scientists to test altruism and trust. The researchers also discovered that political liberals may talk the compassionate talk but don't walk the walk, at least any more than conservatives do. Self-described liberals were more likely to support increased public spending and redistributive programs. But when asked to put their faith in others or contribute money to the larger good, lefties were no more munificent or trusting than right-thinkers. "Some would argue that liberals are indeed generous, albeit with others' money," the researchers noted wryly in a just-published working paper provocatively titled "Do Liberals Play Nice?" Milyo and his co-authors, Lisa Anderson and Jennifer Mellor of the College of William & Mary, surveyed a total of 196 William and Mary students to determine, among other things, which political party they supported and how politically liberal or conservative they were. Then the researchers instructed the students to play the two games. In the "trust game," test subjects were paired up, and one person from each pair was given $10. This person could keep all the money, send only a portion of it to his or her partner, or send it all. Any amount that was sent was tripled -- an incentive to pass on the money. Then the second person could pass all, some or none of the money back. (The game was played repeatedly, and after the experiment was over, the actual dollar winnings from one of the rounds, chosen at random, were distributed to the pair. That kept the players trying hard each time to maximize their returns while keeping down the cost of the experiment, Milyo said.) So what has this got to do with trusting others? "The payoff was the greatest if players trusted each other to repeatedly send along the full amount," Milyo explained. The second game was called the "public goods experiment." The students were divided into teams of four. Each individual was given $10. Again, they could keep all or any portion of the money and contribute the rest to a pot that would be divided equally among all the players at the end of the game, whether or not they contributed anything to the pot. As an incentive for the participants to donate more to the group fund, the researchers upped the ante and increased the pot by 25 percent, meaning the four players would each earn more if they gave the full amount to the group fund than if they took the money. The game was repeated multiple times, and once again one play was chosen as the payoff round. What did they find? "Bottom line: There was absolutely no difference in either game between levels of trust or desire to put money into the public account between self-described liberals or conservatives, or whether you lean Republican [or] lean toward the Democratic Party," Milyo said. James Carville, Ann Coulter and other fire-breathing political partisans should take heed . "Partisans tend to explain differences in policy and partisanship as reflecting character flaws of their opponents: Republicans are mean-spirited while Democrats lack intelligence," Milyo said. "These results suggest that both groups really behave alike and something other than character explains these [partisan or ideological] differences."
Boz Posté 23 octobre 2005 Signaler Posté 23 octobre 2005 Passionnant. Pour qui s'intéresse un peu à la psychologie évolutionniste et à la nature humaine, il n'y a là rien de surprenant…
Punu Posté 23 octobre 2005 Auteur Signaler Posté 23 octobre 2005 Si l'evopsy est ton dada, je viens de lire un texte vraiment passionnant sur le meutre du point de vue evopsy. https://webspace.utexas.edu/samrethk/Duntle…of_homicide.pdf
Boz Posté 23 octobre 2005 Signaler Posté 23 octobre 2005 Si l'evopsy est ton dada, je viens de lire un texte vraiment passionnant sur le meutre du point de vue evopsy.https://webspace.utexas.edu/samrethk/Duntle…of_homicide.pdf <{POST_SNAPBACK}> oui j'adore ça…je lis ton texte de ce pas.
Boz Posté 23 octobre 2005 Signaler Posté 23 octobre 2005 Excellent texte lui aussi, tout à fait dans la lignée de ce que je sais du sujet. J'ai bien aimé le coup des urgences : si on meurt moins aujourd'hui d'homicide dans nos sociétés, ce n'est pas parce qu'elles sont plus pacifiques ou que nous sommes plus "civilisés", mais parce que la technique des soins médicaux d'urgence a prodigieusement diminué la mortalité des gens victimes d'une tentative d'homicide. En un mot : merci à Ross et Carter ! P.S. Désolé gadrel ce n'était pas le sujet initial du post…
Messages recommandés
Archivé
Ce sujet est désormais archivé et ne peut plus recevoir de nouvelles réponses.