Can you see what is wrong with this sentence?

" The other person knows that you were given $100 and that you have to propose a split of the money. Here's the catch: if the other person accepts your proposal is rejected, you both get nothing. What would you do?"

The problem is that it doesn't make any sense at all. We both know what you were trying to say, why don't you go ahead and correct it?

If I accept your proposal it's rejected? Weird.

Just curious: was the Ultimatum Game oxytocin test a proper double-blinded clinical trial?

If so, that's... rather scary really. Very impressive result.

" Here's the catch: if the other person accepts your proposal is rejected, you both get nothing"

This is wrong.It makes no sense whatsoever.

The correct wording is either " Here's the catch: if the other person rejects your proposal, you both get nothing" or " Here's the catch: unless the other person accepts your proposal will be rejected and you both get nothing" ( Horrible sentence )

Please fix this, an elementary error of this sort undermines your credibility.

I agree with the above comments. If you are indeed a professor, you should be able to write so that readers are able to understand what you want to say. Wittgenstein had some pithy comments about these matters.

Indeed, the sentence appears to be wrong. A quick check of the wikipedia article about the Ultimatum game learn that the second person can either accept, in which case the money is split as proposed, or decline, in which case both players get nothing.

I was thinking about how the game would work if the sentence was correct; that is, the second player is unaware of the actual rules of the game, and if he or she accepts the offer, both get nothing (meaning, the outcome of the game is the inverse of the anwer of the second person). In that case, I'd suspect that most players would offer 1 cent to the other player, hoping he or she would reject the offer (likely), and thus the money would be split as offered.

How about the same case, but splitting the money the other way around; if rejected, the first player would get the amount that he or she offered to the second player. How much money (=your reward) can you offer the other player, and still get them to reject the offer? Because the second player would be oblivious to the rules, the limit would be the same as in the original game, except that it is approached from the opposite side.

In the original game, I think I would offer a 50-50 split, because it just seems fair, and I think no reasonable person would reject the offer.

Thanks to the careful readers for catching the typo on the ultimatum game experiment. The article was transcribed and I missed this error when reading it. It is now fixed.

Yes, the oxytocin study was run double blind. This indicates that THOMAS (see my other posts) is a very powerful system in humans since it motivates generosity in a one-shot anonymous setting.

Paul J. Zak and Ken Grimes are currently writing a book called The Moral Molecule

Good to see that spraying chemicals up the nose can lead to the same conclusions as simply talking to people (and listening). I work as a qualitative researcher, and have specialised in personal finance, and came to pretty much the same conclusions about trust through interviewing consumers. People trust banks which exhibit trust towards them, and the challenge is persuading banks to trust customers - banks lack brains as well as noses, so have to be told these things. A short summary of my research report is available on the website of my client, First Direct Bank ( UK ).