[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know if anyone is interest in the unhijacked thread but this idea of a single iteration is mistaken. Even if we play the game only once its not irrational to offer a fairly generous split and turn down a derisory offer.

Effectively for humans there are no single iteration scenarios. Its all just more of the same.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Two hands reach out from a curtain, voice says, "please take one or the other, no strings attached". One hand has $.001 and the other has $1. why should I to take the $.001?

The curtain opens. Bill Gates is standing beside Warren. Warren tells me, "if you take the $1 I'll give $9 to Bill, otherwise he gets nothing." I should take the $.001 for what reason?

It's tough to do these experiments in the necessary blind setting, but by keeping the money small and by dealing with strangers it comes close enough in the original. If we increase the amount to $10 Million to split, not too many people would turn down $1Million to 'teach that SOB a lesson' or whatever emotion is pulling the strings.

The original is trying to test the other end of that spectrum, where the amount is not very significant and we have no reason to favor one stranger over the other. I can understand the rationality of offering a decent split, but if I turn down free money with no strings I know in my case it'd be an fu response not a rational one.
"I'll be better off doing this.".."the world will be better off if I do this" doesn't seem to apply.

"Effectively , for humans there are no single iterations" .. seems a hi-falootin way of covering up emotionalism. ??

luckyme