One study says there are 4 types of people. 2 of them might screw you over. Which are you?

How much do you really trust people?

That's what scientists in Spain wanted to find out. So they staked out a festival in Barcelona and recruited about 500 volunteers to play a little carnival game for fun, prizes, and, you know, advancing our knowledge of human psychology.

Step right up! Step right up and learn whether you can trust your friends! Photo from iStock.


The games were all variations of the prisoner's dilemma.

What's the prisoner's dilemma? I'll explain. (You can read this section in a gangster-y detective voice if you want).

Image from iStock.

It's a famous thought experiment that helps us figure out how people manage trust, risk, and temptation while making decisions, see? If you're being traditional, what you do is get two wise guys, separate the lugs, and tell 'em that they're both under arrest. But you're a nice guy, and you've really got their best interests at heart, so you'll cut 'em a deal: If they rat on their buddy, they go free.

But here's the twist, if they both rat, both go to the slammer. Of course, they could both clam up, in which case you can't do much. Maybe give 'em a little time in the clink, but that's about it.

Imagine that you were the prisoner: Do you trust your friend and clam up so you're both safe from prison?

Or do you think you can play 'em by turning them in and getting yourself a better deal? (You can stop the gangster voice now. Or don't. It's a free country.)

This kind of game also happens on reality TV all the time when partners have to decide whether they want to split the money or take it all. And you can tweak the game by changing how big the rewards and punishments are, too.

In the case of the Spanish study, the scientists made the volunteers play a few different games with different setups.

Instead of trying to place people's reactions in pre-existing categories, the scientists in this study gathered everyone's results, then let a computer group the people together as best it could.

This is what it found:

First, there were the optimists. These people will work together whenever the everyone-works-together option is most rewarding. They seem to believe that when the payoff's obvious, everyone will work for it.

Then, there were the pessimists. These people always expect to get screwed over and will only try to cooperate when they'll benefit anyway.

Thirdly, there were the trusting people. They'll always cooperate, whether it makes sense or not. Bless their (naive) little hearts.

Finally, we get the envious people. Envious players don't really seem to care what the outcome is, as long as they're getting more.

There were roughly the same number of optimists, pessimists, and trusting people — about 20% of the group each. Envious was a bit more, at about 30%. There was also a mysterious fifth category, which the computer couldn't classify.

Living in a world of envious people might seem like a downer, but we can actually do a little scientific jujitsu on this and turn it into something awesome.

That's because this experiment is part of game theory, a branch of mathematics that studies how people make decisions, which carries important consequences in designing things like laws, political systems, or jobs.

While we like to assume people will always act rationally, this study suggests that people think with their gut as much as their brains. And knowing more about people's motivations means we can add new little incentives to big projects that affect lots of people. Maybe that new anti-poverty law needs a little bonus for the rich to appease envious players, for example — or maybe it needs a fail-safe to keep the pessimists happy.

By understanding what motivates people, we can motivate people to do good in the world.

As for what the mysterious fifth category is, maybe it's this guy:

Family

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet

Policing women's bodies — and by consequence their clothes — is nothing new to women across the globe. But this mother's "legging problem" is particularly ridiculous.

What someone wears, regardless of gender, is a personal choice. Sadly, many folks like Maryann White, mother of four sons, think women's attire — particularly women's leggings are a threat to men.

While sitting in mass at the University of Notre Dame, White was aghast by the spandex attire the young women in front of her were sporting.

Keep Reading Show less
More

Men are sharing examples of how they step up and step in when they see problematic behaviors in their peers, and people are here for it.

Twitter user "feminist next door" posed an inquiry to her followers, asking "good guys" to share times they saw misogyny or predatory behavior and did something about it. "What did you say," she asked. "What are your suggestions for the other other men in this situation?" She added a perfectly fitting hashtag: #NotCoolMan.

Not only did the good guys show up for the thread, but their stories show how men can interrupt situations when they see women being mistreated and help put a stop to it.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture