Team/Individual Production

The piece “How to get Rich to share the marbles” was rather interesting, especially considering how plausible it was to explain the big picture of America. One part that really interested me was how the article stated that the chimpanzees did not share ever, regardless of joint participation or whatever the case may be. In every situation it was first come first serve and every chimp for themselves. This shows the difference between chimpanzees and us; they have no sense of emotional attachment or obligations the way humans do. To them, they show the primal animalistic behavior that is probably emblematic of how humans use to act in the caveman days. Nowadays, in order to maximize our potential, it is more important to work collectively rather than selfishly in order to fulfill the utilitarian idea that is best for all off. It also makes sense that if both toddlers have to work to get marbles, they feel that the result income is shared. Similarly to business co-owners working together to become successful, they feel obligated to share the reward because they needed each other to receive it. It was very smart of the psychologist to use three year olds because at that age you don’t necessarily feel moral obligations and more so react in an instinctive way. The scenario where they both pull the rope and don’t need each other was representative of many American homes. For example, one toddler received only a single marble at a time for pulling the rope while their peer received three marbles at a time. The toddler may feel that it is unfair they are on the side that receives less marbles and complain that there is no reason the other toddler deserves that spot. Two potential students in America today, student A and student B. S resemble this concept. Student A is born into the inner city with very little funding for the public schooling, little academic help from parents working overtime to make ends meet, and the constant stress to over come the surrounding that they were born into. Student B is from a gated community in one of the wealthiest suburbs in the state, can afford to attend the best private school in the country, and will always have some type of job lined up through his parents’ high-end connections. In America, what you are born into is critical into predicting where you will end up on the economic ladder down the road. The cycle of poverty is a vicious one and is difficult to overcome because of all the additional barriers you must hurdle. Whilst there are people who know since the age of five they are going to be wealthy, whether it is through inheritance or through connections. This leads me to the remark about Obama saying we can restore our economy by essentially leveling the playing field amongst everyone; “everyone does their fair share, everyone plays by the rules, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” This concept is very true and important in concept, but honestly is not feasible. It is not feasible for the same reason the toddlers did not share their marble when it was their own to pull. People will always, to some extent, act in a way that reflects human nature because that’s just the way it is. If someone is capable of cheating the rules in order to gain a lot of money, most of the time people will take that chance especially if they feel it is low risk. Similarly, say there are two applicants for a high paying job. One applicant is extremely qualified while the other is not nearly as qualified but his uncle is the CEO; what do you think happens here? It is just one of the many examples of what leads to inequality and I believe the gift-exchange experiment from the pyschologists helped prove that.