CDR: reputation required for evolution of cooperation in _Science_
Science V 289 8 Sept 2000 p 1773-1775 "Fairness vs Reason in the Ultimatum Game" Nowak, Page, Sigmund (from the abstract) "The rational solution, suggested by game theory, is for the proposer to offer the smallest possible share and for teh responder to accept it. If humans play the game, however, the most frequent outcome is a fair share. In this paper, we develop an evolutionary approach to the Ultimatum Game. We show that fairness will evolve if the proposer can obtain some information on what deals the responder has accepted in the past. Hence, the evolution of fairness, similarly to the evolution of cooperation, is linked to reputation" In the ultimatum game, two players are offered a chance to win a certain sum of money. All they must do is divide it. ...if the responder rejects the deal, both get nothing.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 04:10:26PM -0400, David Honig wrote:
Science V 289 8 Sept 2000 p 1773-1775
"Fairness vs Reason in the Ultimatum Game" Nowak, Page, Sigmund
(from the abstract)
"The rational solution, suggested by game theory, is for the proposer to offer the smallest possible share and for teh responder to accept it. If humans play the game, however, the most frequent outcome is a fair share. In this paper, we develop an evolutionary approach to the Ultimatum Game. We show that fairness will evolve if the proposer can obtain some information on what deals the responder has accepted in the past. Hence, the evolution of fairness, similarly to the evolution of cooperation, is linked to reputation"
This also mentioned in the Economist in the last couple weeks. Their article made the obvious ebay/auction tie. -- Eric Murray http://www.lne.com/ericm ericm at lne.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5 Consulting Security Architect
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, David Honig wrote:
Science V 289 8 Sept 2000 p 1773-1775
"Fairness vs Reason in the Ultimatum Game" Nowak, Page, Sigmund
(from the abstract)
"The rational solution, suggested by game theory, is for the proposer to offer the smallest possible share and for teh responder to accept it.
It is? That isn't any strategy I've ever seen touted as optimal except in a 'single' shot market. Which doesn't happen to conform to a 'free' market model. I"ll leave it as an excersize on why the 'smallest possible share' price will inflate and over a reasonably short period will equalize at a 'fair' price in an interated or multi-vendor market. I will give one hint: "Indiviualism and Economic Order" F.A. Hayek ISBN 0-226-32093-6 ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
David Honig -
Eric Murray -
Jim Choate