[codeismightier]

The experiment seems poorly designed if the purpose is to simulate the real world:

"In the cooperation phase, both players ... contribute simultaneously ... to a common pot, unaware of the partner’s contribution." The higher-ranked player then gets priority in determining how the payoff is split.

Who goes to work without agreeing on a salary?? Who co-founds a company without agreeing to an equity split??

The connotation for the so-called "lower ranked player" is also misleading, as in the real world the employer is more similar to their "lower ranked player": the employer usually commits to paying the employee around three months' worth of salary first. The employee then gets to choose to slack off or work hard. So, in a sense, the employee gets to choose how to divide the payoff: the employee always gets the salary, while the employer gets (output - salary). Of course, in the real world the game is then iterated, as the employer gets to choose to fire the employee or continue the relationship.

Any experiment in game theory that doesn't involve iteration is highly unrealistic -- the fact that we have a reputation to keep and have to deal with each other over and over again is pretty darn important! Frankly I'm a little bit disappointed that Nature has chosen to publish this paper, as I don't see what insight it offers.

[RobertoG]

"The experiment seems poorly designed if the purpose is to simulate the real world"

The stated purpose is to try to reproduce the same experiments and behaviors that observed in other primates.

Some insights I get:

1. In those conditions, our behavior is very similar to other primates.

2. The splitting phase is not influenced by the collaboration phase (I can't avoid to note that you don't choose to apply this insight to start ups).

3. There is some component that we don't understand that account for the difference with the Nash equilibrium.

4. When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail

[codeismightier]

>> 2. The splitting phase is not influenced by the collaboration phase (I can't avoid to note that you don't choose to apply this insight to start ups).

Vesting is supposed to serve that purpose by allowing a co-founder who doesn't contribute to be fired. Certainly it can be harder to fire a non-performing co-founder though.

[acveilleux]

> Who co-founds a company without agreeing to an equity split??

Lots of people! This is the normal state of affair in many spin-offs where the product happens before the company and the "ownership" must be divided after most of the work is done.