May 23, 1998
Letters
A voice from beyond the grave?
The lively article on butterfly IQ ("How Bright is a Butterfly?" SN: 4/11/98, p. 233) errs in stating that Charles Darwin "wrote in 1895." Darwin died in 1882, so the quotation must have come from a later edition of his book.
Jim Zosel
Minneapolis, Minn.Improved ID may worsen crime
I read "Private Eyes" (SN: 4/4/98, p. 216) with apprehension. If automatic teller machines (ATMs) someday permit presentation of a body part for authentication purposes, then ruthless muggers will no longer be content with taking your wallet, watch, and jewelry -- they'll cut off your finger or rip out your eyeball in order to fool the fingerprint analyzer or retinal scanner and gain complete access to your bank account.
ATMs should always require a personal identification number (PIN). In fact, users really need two PINS -- an access PIN for withdrawing money and a duress PIN to trip a silent alarm if the user is being forced to withdraw money.
Skylar Barclay Sudderth
Brownwood, TexasRole of game theory in economics
The issues and theories discussed in "Yours, Mine, and Ours" (SN: 3/28/98, p. 205) do not challenge traditional economic theory, they complement it. Traditional theory does a rather good job of explaining the behavior of large, impersonal markets, which constitute an enormous fraction of commercial activity. It often does a bad job of explaining the behavior of small groups, where individuals know each other and may interact repeatedly over time, or nonmarket situations, such as public choice of government policy. Every example discussed in the article concerned one of those two cases.
Modern game theory offers insights into such situations, which is precisely why economists have been so excited about it for at least the last 15 years. Although economists may disagree about the particulars of the theories discussed in the article, virtually all agree that the general approach is both useful and consistent with traditional theory.
John J. Seater
Professor of Economics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, N.C.The experiments apparently did not take into consideration the role that trust plays in cooperation. Because cooperation is a two-way street, each cooperator has to be able to trust the other's intention.
Trust is easier among people who are most like us or with whom we have had some experience. The smaller and more homogeneous the cooperating group and the longer their shared past, the easier it is to estabish trust. This explains why generosity and cooperation
trust. This explains why generosity and cooperation rise among participants who have a chance to talk and discover common interests.
Marilyn Kramer
Wausau, Wis.Although not elaborated on in the article, researchers who conduct ultimatum and public goods experiments indeed consider trust to be important. However, no single variable easily explains the economic behavior of an animal that mixes multiple group affiliations with self-interest. -- B. Bower
I have never read an article in a respectable publication that was so full of methodological, logical, and theoretical fallacies as this one. First of all, "games" are just that -- games! People "play" very differently when the stakes are real. Secondly, the games used were apparently zero-sum games, with a definite and finite amount of money or rewards in each one.
A real capitalistic, market economy is not at all like that. A market economy produces wealth and new capital. The capitalist does not need to depend upon taking away from the other guy in order to make a profit. In fact, he may need to give to the other guy to make a profit (increase his capital). The game players left out the whole matter of productivity, which is at the heart of a capitalistic, market economy.
Roland Sparks
Lake Forest, Calif.
Send communications to:
Editor, Science News
1719 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
or: scinews@sciserv.org
All letters subject to editing.
Table of Contents -- May 23, 1998