We are cavemen (We are hunter-gatherers)

Author: István Scheuring

Recommended age: 10-99

Number of players: 5-40

Space needed for the game: classroom

Difficulty level: 2

Playing time: 10 minutes

Preparation time: 2 minutes

Accessories: Paper and pen for all players, some prize for the winners.

Short description: We are members of a hunter-gatherer group. We have to solve time-consuming, costly, or even dangerous tasks, for the benefit of the group. The tasks are costly, and need several volunteers, but the benefit is shared among everybody in the group. Will there be enough volunteers? Who will be the winner? Does the picture change if there are more groups and the winner is the group that collects the most points per member?

Preparations: Every participant should take pen and paper, and form groups if you play that variant.

Course of the game: The game leader tells the frame story of the game (see above). Then she explains the rules of the game. She starts the story and she presents the players with challenges. For example, she says: “Several people got ill in the group, we need 3 volunteers to attend to them. Close your eyes and don’t speak to each other. Those who are willing to participate in nursing, raise their hands. Thank you, now you can put your hands down, and you can open your eyes.” Then the game leader informs the group whether there were enough volunteers or not. If there were enough volunteers (at least three in the example), then the volunteers receive 5-1=4 points. Those who didn’t raise their hands receive 5 points. If there were not enough volunteers (less than three in our example), then the volunteers get -1 points and the others get 0 points at the given round. It is worth showing the scoring rule on the blackboard or to project it. Finally, everybody records how many points they received in the previous round.

Other possible tasks the group has to solve: Several volunteers are needed for hunting, a couple of volunteers are needed to root out a huge tuber, volunteers are needed to transfer the prey to the camp, volunteers are needed to carry water or to build a bridge, volunteers are needed to build a hut, volunteers are needed to look after to the children, etc. (We can change how many members are needed for a task, but this number should always be less than the size of the group.)

Variants of the game:

Variant 1: The participants have to raise their hands at the exact same moment, but with open eyes. For example, the players have to decide on a sign. They shouldn’t talk to each other, and they shouldn’t change their decision. It is important that everybody should realise who raised her hand and who didn’t.
Variant 2: Similar to variant 1), but within a limited time (e.g. 5 seconds) anyone can modify their decision.
Variant 3: The same as the original game, but we form more groups. The winner is the group with the highest benefit/member.
Variant 4: Similar to variant c) but not only the most successful group, but the most successful individual is also rewarded.

Biological background: One of the key elements of human evolution is that our ancestors lived in small groups, and were competing with other human groups. Since those groups, where cooperation was more effective, were more successful in this competition. the members within each group became more and more cooperative. Language and culture largely helped the evolution of cooperation, and cooperation helped the evolution of language and culture. This co-evolutionary process modified the genetics of humans to be ready for helping members of their group, even if it is not directly beneficial for themselves. The essence of this game is that the volunteer always earns less points than the non-volunteer, independently of whether there were enough volunteers (4<5) or not (-1 <0). That is, it is never worth raising one’s hand for a task. The winner will always be the player who never raises her hand. Despite this, there will be enough volunteers in most groups for the most tasks! The willingness to be a volunteer will be even stronger if there is competition between the groups, since the winner group will probably need an above average cooperation level. However, if there are too many volunteers for a task, then the effectiveness decreases, since some members invest in the cooperation redundantly. This problem can be solved if participants raise their hands with open eyes. Observe that in this case the number of volunteers will almost always will be equal to the optimal number. If they modify the decision (variant b) then the number of volunteers will be optimal even more frequently. The real situation is modeled best if both the group and a member can win. There will be a strong drive to be a volunteer even in this variant, since the individual winner almost always is a member of the winning group.

References: