[SilverElfin]

> This is a pretty disturbing result: low-gamma markets have extremely high densities of liars compared to the true distribution p(x) while high-gamma markets have only moderate amplification of deception.

Can someone explain this in plain English? I intuitively can believe the hypothesis made in the introduction of this article. But I don’t get all the complex math.

[the_tyger]

Hi - gamma is defined as [average time spent on market]/[average time spent off market] for someone who isn't lying. This depends on what kind of job obviously, but if it's the norm for people to spend 1 year unemployed for every 15 years employed, then gamma = 1/15. The claim is that the lower the gamma, the higher proportion of liars in the job candidate pool.