Over the last 25 years, more than a hundred dictator game experiments have been published. This meta study summarises the evidence. Exploiting the fact that most experiments had to fix parameters they did not intend to test, in multiple regression the meta study is able to assess the effect of single manipulations, controlling for a host of alternative explanatory factors. The resulting rich dataset also provides a testbed for comparing alternative specifications of the statistical model for analysing dictator game data. It shows how Tobit models (assuming that dictators would even want to take money) and hurdle models (assuming that the decision to give a positive amount is separate from the choice of amount, conditional on giving) provide additional insights.
As a novel contribution, we also investigated whether social dominance can be perceived exclusively as a social phenomenon. Recently, Melo et al. (2016) had subjects play several social bargaining games and instructed them that they would play against either a human or against a computer. The authors were able to show that human beings would not feel guilty if they exploited machines. De Kleijn et al. (2019) examined the influence of anthropomorphizing various opponents in the ultimatum and dictator game. They were able to show that fairness concerns in the ultimatum game were not influenced by the physical appearance of the opponent, but by individual differences in the anthropomorphization of others. Regarding altruistic behavior in the dictator game, however, an influence of physical appearance was found. A humanoid robot achieved the lowest dictator offers compared to technical-looking robots. For this reason, we have introduced a bot as one of the recipients in the design of our study. We wanted to clarify whether this opponent is treated similarly to certain hierarchy levels in a game framed by social status.
Also, one might expect that there is still a difference between the constructs of social dominance and egoism/altruism. As indicated by the exploratory correlations, altruism and dominance indicate opposing dictator decisions, as dominance led to less and altruism to more generous offers. This coincides with the finding that SDO is negatively correlated with cooperation and positively correlated with the tendency to behave selfishly with resources in economic games (e.g., Halali et al., 2018). While social dominance may be linked to low altruism, the findings of Rodrigues et al. (2015) were derived with extreme group selection, while in the case of the present study, only an ad hoc sampling was done. Therefore, it is still questionable whether this sampling has led to a similar distribution of the construct to actually compare the findings.
After completion of the first study discussed above, a second group of 98 female subjects participating in a separate protocol in the psychology department became available, and were recruited to play the dictator game. To limit the conundrum of multiple testing, we used a more stringent criteria for SNP selection in the second sample. Subjects were genotyped solely for the three SNPs found to be significant in both the SVO and Dictator in the first sample (rs2268490, rs237887 and rs1042778).
In the student sample, subjects were provided with a login and password to an online site and upon entering were provided with instructions for the DG and SVO. Ordering of DG and SVO was randomized and there was no effect of game order on average giving amount or value orientation. In the second sample, subjects played the dictator game at the Hebrew University Social Development lab as part of an ongoing study on genetic and environmental influences on prosocial behavior in early childhood. Game instructions were identical for both groups.
Julius Caesar was a Roman general and politician who named himself dictator of the Roman Empire, a rule that lasted less than one year before he was famously assassinated by political rivals in 44 B.C.
Julius Caesar was a Roman general and politician who named himself dictator of the Roman Empire, a rule that lasted less than one year before he was famously assassinated by political rivals in 44 B.C.E.
Ferdinand Marcos (1917-1989) was a nationalist president remembered as a corrupt dictator who ushered in an era of political repression and violence. In attaining and holding the presidency, he wielded charisma, vast wealth, political connections among both Filipinos and Americans, military clout, and drew upon the charm of his wife, the former beauty pageant winner Imelda Marcos.
Musharraf thinks the same way about democracy in Pakistan. "I am for democracy," he told me. "I am not a dictator. I don't want a dictatorship." To sharpen the point, he insisted that elections for parliament would be held in October as the Supreme Court had ordered. Yet, on June 27, he proposed to amend the constitution to give himself the power to appoint and dismiss the prime minister and to dissolve the elected National Assembly. He also proposed to establish and chair a National Security Council that will oversee the prime minister. Yes, there will be elections, but Musharraf will gather all power in his own hands before they take place.
"True democracy" has two elements, Musharraf explained recently. "One is having an elected government. Two is how that government functions. . . . People say I am not elected, but the true essence of democracy is there now." How is that so? Well, because Musharraf feels he's a democrat. "Unless there is unity of command, unless there is one man in charge on top," he says, democracy will not function. To many this might seem like dictatorship, but Musharraf truly does not see it that way.
To be sure, Haider does not face the challenge of reconciling the range of interests that Musharraf must as head of state. If Haider were president, his temperament and leadership style would provide more grounds to fear dictatorship than Musharraf's. But that is the point: Musharraf is too good a person, too desirous of popularity, and too politically awkward to sustain a dictatorship. Yet, dictatorship is what his proposed constitution would create, however noble the dictator and his chosen associates. The alternative--a transition to democracy--does not suit Musharraf's reluctance to empower others who may not agree fully with him. Nor does it serve the army's desire to retain the power and resources it has controlled for decades.
Ultimately, as long as Pakistan's government hinges on the character of its army chief, the country's future will remain doubtful. Musharraf is not the monster many Indians take him for. He will be a man of peace if India engages him diplomatically, for that is a role in which he fancies himself. Yet his conviction that he is indispensable prevents him from developing the diverse coalition necessary to build the progressive Islamic welfare state he seeks. By making himself the object of all attention, Musharraf diverts pressure for reform from both the political parties and the army. He may be that rarity, a selfless dictator, but Pakistan needs something more.
Cameras captured the reaction of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- who on Tuesday was the first cabinet level official to visit the war-torn country since the uprising began . Clinton merely said \"wow\" as she received the news of the dictator's death via e-mail while on a trip to Afghanistan.
In 1938, the world's most famous movie star began to prepare afilm about the monster of the 20th century. Charlie Chaplin looked a littlelike Adolf Hitler, in part because Hitler had chosen the same toothbrushmoustache as the Little Tramp. Exploiting that resemblance, Chaplin devised asatire in which the dictator and a Jewish barber from the ghetto would bemistaken for each other. The result, released in 1940, was "The GreatDictator," Chaplin's first talking picture and the highest-grossing of hiscareer, although it would cause him great difficulties and indirectly lead tohis long exile from the United States.
In 1938, Hitler was not yet recognized in all quarters as theembodiment of evil. Powerful isolationist forces in America preached a policyof nonintervention in the troubles of Europe, and rumors of Hitler's policy toexterminate the Jews were welcomed by anti-Semitic groups. Some of Hitler'searliest opponents, including anti-Franco American volunteers in the SpanishCivil War, were later seen as "premature antifascists"; by fightingagainst fascism when Hitler was still considered an ally, they raised suspicionthat they might be communists. "The Great Dictator" ended with a longspeech denouncing dictatorships, and extolling democracy and individualfreedoms. This sounded to the left like bedrock American values, but to some onthe right, it sounded pinko.
IfChaplin had not been "premature," however, it is unlikely he wouldhave made the film at all. Once the horrors of the Holocaust began to be known,Hitler was no longer funny, not at all. The Marx Brothers, ahead of the curve,made "Duck Soup" in 1933, with Groucho playing the dictator Rufus T.Firefly in a comedy that had ominous undertones about what was already underway in Europe. And as late as 1942, the German exile Ernst Lubitsch made"To Be or Not to Be," with Jack Benny as an actor who becomesembroiled in the Nazi occupation of Poland.
Theplot is one of those concoctions that makes the action barely possible. Thehero, a barber-soldier in World War I, saves the life of a German pilot namedSchultz and flies him to safety, all the time not even knowing he was the enemy.Their crash-landing gives the barber amnesia, and for 20 years he doesn't knowwho he is. Then he recovers and returns to his barber shop in the country ofTomania (say it aloud), only to discover that the dictator Hynkel has come topower, not under the swastika, but under the Double Cross. His storm troopersare moving through the ghetto, smashing windows and rounding up Jews (the term"concentration camp" is used early, matter-of-factly). But thebarber's shop is spared by the intervention of Schultz, now an assistantminister, who recognizes him. 041b061a72