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

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 01:27:12 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless"

    Received: by id BAA07781 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:32:35 GMT
    Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 20:27:12 -0500
    Subject: Re: The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless 
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
    Precedence: bulk

    On Sunday, February 10, 2002, at 07:57 , Ray Recchia wrote:

    > But if someone offered you 10% and you refused it how would you be
    > better off than if you had accepted?

    Ah, but, why, in this scenario of free money, should I let the other guy
    get 90%? Same or nothing, only way I'd play it. Yes, I'd be no better
    off, but, neither would that greedy bastard....

    Meet me halfway, and I'm willing to move. Trades and deals should be
    between equals.

    > That is the game theory purely rational analysis.

    It seems more rational to me to ensure fairness- that way no-one feels
    cheated, and the offer is taken with respect. It is not rational in a
    bargaining situation to deal unfairly, regardless of outcome.

    Unless you consider the bottom-line to be the only rationality in this
    game. I don't.

    - Wade

    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 - 01:41:45 GMT