Epstein Secrets

olution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 937:1291- 1298. 15. Nowak MA (2006) Five rule. har the evolution of cooperation. Science 319:1560-1563. 16. Sigmund K (2010) The Calculus of Selfishness (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton). 17. Sigmund K (2012) Moral assessment in indirect reciprocity./ Thew Bid 29925

lic information (18, 32, 33), our results confirm that this strategy is too strict and unforgiving when information is private and noisy (34-36). Evolutionary Dynamics. Next we explore how likely a leading-eight strategy would evolve when population members can change their strategies over time. We first consider

y finite automata. I Icon Theory 57:278-305. 7. Him* MA. Sigmund K 11992) Ti for let in heterogeneous Populatioiwalarive 355: 250-253. & Hawk PA, Sigmund K (1993) A strategy of win.stay, lose4rft that outperforms lit. for.tat In the Prisoners Dilemma game NOW. 361(64321:56-58. evolve to be in love toda

operate without looking: Why we care what people think and not just what they do Moshe Hoffman', Erez Yoeli', and Martin A. Nowak' I' •Peogram for Evolutionary Dynamics, Oeparunent of Mathematics and 'Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 Edited by Michael S. Gan

s, Cambridge, UK. [54] Hofbauer, J., Sigmund, K., 1990. Adaptive dynamics and evolutionary stability. Appl. Math. Lett. 3, 75-79. [55] Hofbauer J, Sigmund K, 1998. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics, Cam- bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. [56] Hofbauer, J., Sigmund, K., 2003. Evolutionary game d

205-230. [19] Cressman, It., 1992. The stability concept of evolutionary game theory. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, 94. [20] Cressman It, 2003. Evolutionary Dynamics and Extensive Form Games. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, UK. [21] Dieckmann, U., Law, R., Metz, J.A.J., (Eds.), 2000. The Geometry of Ecological