> Norenzayan can only speculate about the significance:
> "We need that common denominator that works for
> everyone.
When I was first reading this, I thought it would be cool to give the other person 6 and thereby give them warm fuzzies about the anonymous other person. And I still think this is cool.
But I'm reading _Atlas Shrugged_ at the moment and have changed my decision to considering any outcome to be equally valid on the part of the person making the decision. Why? Because - if someone has $10, why should they be induced to leave any for someone else?
The study is founded on the flawed assumption that it's a good thing for people to give their money away.
When I was first reading this, I thought it would be cool to give the other person 6 and thereby give them warm fuzzies about the anonymous other person. And I still think this is cool.
But I'm reading _Atlas Shrugged_ at the moment and have changed my decision to considering any outcome to be equally valid on the part of the person making the decision. Why? Because - if someone has $10, why should they be induced to leave any for someone else?
The study is founded on the flawed assumption that it's a good thing for people to give their money away.