Item — HN Reader

> This is a characteristic of spite.

I don't think so. The motivation behind spiteful actions is to purposely cause losses to others, and the gain derived from this action is rejoicing on other people's losses. This implies having and displaying power over others, and exercising this power to establish themselves even with so little gain.

Very different than deriving no gain.

1 comments

Consider the Ultimatum game. Alice and Bob are part of a millionaire madman's experiment, and so Alice and Bob are told the following: they have won a sum of $10,000 and Alice will be given the authority to decide how to divide their winnings. If Bob accepts Alice's offer, then both of them get the money as decided in the offer. If Bob rejects Alice's offer, then both of them get nothing. In addition, they have no ability to communicate or negotiate the offer; it's a one and done thing. So let's say Alice offers 100 dollars to Bob, and she will keep 9900.

Now, most people would say that Bob is acting out of spite if he rejects Alice's offer, because he's causing Alice losses and he gains nothing, and the benefit he receives is that Alice is made sad by this. Is that a fair interpretation, though? He believes that he's acting out of a moral obligation to screw over someone who themself is (in his mind) acting unjustly. He's valuing punishing someone that he feels is breaking a social contract greater than the 100 dollars that he would otherwise have. What do you call what he is doing in this situation if not spite? And if he is acting out of a principled objection to an unfair situation, does it become something other than spite? And if it's actually principled, why does the principle seem to melt away when the offer is $7000 to $3000?

I feel like spite is a huge motivator behind a lot of cultural issues nowadays but it can only come from people who feel as if they are coming from a place of weakness or victimization. There is always a moral indignation. The gratification is in seeing their vision of justice meted out. It isn't always a psychopathic, sadistic behavior but it can be in those cases where a vision of justice is distorted and psychopathic. Consider this: isn't imprisoning people often a form, ultimately, of societal spite? In isolation it may be cheaper to just give petty criminals whatever they want rather than paying the cost for them being jailed. Amortized cost, it's probably a lot cheaper to pay a drunkard's taxi home from the bar every single time he goes drinking than to lock him in jail for 3 months for a second DUI. Is spite the reason that we don't just give him that? Again, the justice thing.

“… it can only come from people who feel as if they are coming from a place of weakness or victimization.”

That’s a good thought experiment. Let me add the terminology of Francis Fukuyama’s “demand for dignity”—-seems to go even closer to the nerve.

https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2019/02/11/ep209-1-fukuyam...

The mathematically correct way to distribute the winnings is 50-50. In a situation where value is created only if 2 entities come together, the only fair way to distribute the winnings is 50-50. If Alice provided $1m dollars of startup capital, but can only achieve her goal having Bob on the team. Mathematically, Bob should be entitled to half the profits. In your game Bob is clearly being disadvantaged. Real life doesn't typically have the constraint "In addition, they have no ability to communicate or negotiate the offer; it's a one and done thing". Without this constraint, Bob can act rationally by threatening and following through with spitefulness in order to negotiate better terms. If Alice is not willing to negotiate until the fairness mark is reached, they are just as liable for the net loss in value.