You are quite possibly right. And I don't mean to impugn NZ justice here because I have no additional information. Nonetheless I smell a rat. It should not be necessary to shoot themselves in the foot. Such cases so…
Same here. Thought I must be in the 90%. It depends on how the test was conducted.
The experimental design deliberately excludes this type of signal. Anonymous, non-repetitive, closed book. It is not an argument against social signalling. Just that there is something else going on too.
I have not read the original paper, but it seems plausible that the experimenters would have tried different game rules and this is the version which gives the reported result most strongly. On that assumption, one way…
You are quite possibly right. And I don't mean to impugn NZ justice here because I have no additional information. Nonetheless I smell a rat. It should not be necessary to shoot themselves in the foot. Such cases so…
Same here. Thought I must be in the 90%. It depends on how the test was conducted.
The experimental design deliberately excludes this type of signal. Anonymous, non-repetitive, closed book. It is not an argument against social signalling. Just that there is something else going on too.
I have not read the original paper, but it seems plausible that the experimenters would have tried different game rules and this is the version which gives the reported result most strongly. On that assumption, one way…