The students then played a simple economic game with another participant via a computer. One volunteer is tasked with splitting $10 with another volunteer in any way he likes. The other volunteer either accepts the offer or rejects it as unfair, in which case no one gets any money.
So I'm supposed to split $10 with you any way I want to. And then you get to declare that my splitting $10 with you any way I wanted to was "fair" or "not fair"?
As long as you are getting any piece of the $10 it seems to me to be "fair".
Or were the creators of this little game setting up an experiment in determining how to influence the amount of generosity I exhibited by giving you any piece of the $10?
Testosterone or not, I'll find the lowest amount that will result in me keeping the rest of the $10 and then nibble down on your part again. It wasn't my $10 to begin with, but I'll profit just as you will if we agree to split someone else's money. What I see is an experiment that can inform politicians of where the whining begins from the victimicrats about not getting "their fair share" of wealth redistribution.
stay safe.
skidmark