Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA07705 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:05:00 GMT Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20020210195412.00a3b090@mail.clarityconnect.com> X-Sender: rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 19:57:51 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Ray Recchia <rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com> Subject: Re: The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless In-Reply-To: <A1ED44FA-1E46-11D6-A54A-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20020210105023.00a34ec0@mail.clarityconnect.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 11:52 AM 2/10/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sunday, February 10, 2002, at 11:10 , Ray Recchia wrote:
>
>>So what will you offer?
>
>It didn't even enter my head reading about that experiment to offer
>anything but a clean split down the middle, and I can't see any reason why
>an offer of anything but 50% makes any sense at all. The main logic is
>getting the money at all, and, any tincture of unfairness might jinx the deal.
>
>Anyway, were I a participant in that experiment, I would offer 50%, and
>refuse anything else.
>
>After all, it is money falling from the trees in the first place....
>
>- Wade
And your response fits in perfectly with the research. But if someone
offered you 10% and you refused it how would you be better off than if you
had accepted? That is the game theory purely rational analysis.
Ray Recchia
Ray Recchia
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 01:14:17 GMT