Status Updates From Foundations of Human Social...

There is so much diversity in UG offers among nonmodern people that the case for "market-orientation increasing UG offers and then also fairness" is not very strong. But ok maybe market orientation really explain some part like 10-20% of the diversity in UG offers and rejections.

Jean Ensminger - a new person to me - also discusses interestingly the effect of market involvement on the people based on classic discussions like Hirschman (1982) and Montesquieu (1973). "Constant practice of commercial transactions generates ... trust and empathy but ... permeates all spheres of life with the element of calculation and instrumental reason".

Both the Mongolia and Zimbabwe cases can probably be explained by there being less trust in situations where you know less about the other people because they are different e.g. of different ethnicity.

However, there seems not to be any altruistic bias towards the in-group.

Tsiname Bolivia: Village membership was the main differentiator – market integration had no effect on how much was offered in UG and PGG contrary to the theory proposed in the whole book.

Several anthropologists repeat the same test in their "own" tribes/communities and discuss the results a) alone and b) together. It is like listening to a discussion. There are several different voices but some common conclusions. Hadza in small communities are one of the most egalitarian societies and frequently share food - but share unequally in the Ultimatum Game.

Is it possible to measure social preferences? Looks like it is. How are social preferences included in utlity functions? Dos this really make sence? Maybe.

Started rereading this book.

After I read the book by Karl Sigmund which discussed e.g. Ultimatum Game based on Methodological Individualism very interesting to read this book based on something very different but basically also discussing Ultimatum Game.

One same question as discussed by Sigmund: Why are people playing contrary to the prediction from rational actor assumption / classical game theory?