Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA07781 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:32:35 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <797814FD-1E8E-11D6-A54A-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
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
> 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.
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