4 ms·

It is a weird game, but experimental situations are usually contrived. They define cooperation as the absence of cheating. But the surprise is that people jump

It is a weird game, but experimental situations are usually contrived. They define cooperation as the absence of cheating. But the surprise is that people jump at the chance to fine the cheater, even though they have to pay the same amount as the fine: You can fine the cheater by taking away some money, as long as you're willing to give up the same amount yourself. In other words, you can punish a cheater if you're willing to pay for the opportunity.

klenwell 15y ago
Another famous experiment that supports the finding that people are hyper-sensitive toward cheating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task#Policing_social_rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task#Policing_s... This experimental evidence supports the hypothesis that a Wason task proves to be easier if the rule to be tested is one of social exchange (in order to receive benefit X you need to fulfill condition Y) and the subject is asked to police the rule, but is more difficult otherwise. Such a distinction, if empirically borne out, would support the contention of evolutionary psychologists that certain features of human psychology may be mechanisms that have evolved, through natural selection, to solve specific problems of social interaction, rather than expressions of general intelligence. In this case, the module is described as a specialized cheater-detection module.