The experiment seems poorly designed if the purpose is to simulate the real world:<p>&quot;In the cooperation phase, both players ... contribute simultaneously ... to a common pot, unaware of the partner’s contribution.&quot; The higher-ranked player then gets priority in determining how the payoff is split.<p>Who goes to work without agreeing on a salary?? Who co-founds a company without agreeing to an equity split??<p>The connotation for the so-called &quot;lower ranked player&quot; is also misleading, as in the real world the employer is more similar to their &quot;lower ranked player&quot;: the employer usually commits to paying the employee around three months&#x27; 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.<p>Any experiment in game theory that doesn&#x27;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&#x27;m a little bit disappointed that Nature has chosen to publish this paper, as I don&#x27;t see what insight it offers.