Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA07705 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:05:00 GMT Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> X-Sender: email@example.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 19:57:51 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Ray Recchia <email@example.com> Subject: Re: The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless In-Reply-To: <A1ED44FA-1E46-11D6-A54A-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
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....
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.
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