Re: The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless

From: Ray Recchia (
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 00:57:51 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless"

    Received: by id BAA07705 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:05:00 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
    Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 19:57:51 -0500
    From: Ray Recchia <>
    Subject: Re: The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless 
    In-Reply-To: <>
    References: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 01:14:17 GMT