请帮我讲讲这篇文章的意思

云的足迹

做题是都对了，但是文章意思还是不太透彻，能请耐心的ＮＮ们帮我简单翻译一下吗．．．

    For many years, theoretical

       economists characterized humans

       as rational beings relentlessly bent

Line       on maximizing purely selfish reward.

  (5)      Results of an experimental economics

study appear to contradict this view,

however.  In the “Ultimatum Game,”

two subjects, who cannot exchange

information, are placed in separate

 (10)      rooms.  One is randomly chosen to

propose how a sum of money, known

to both, should be shared between

them; only one offer, which must

be accepted or rejected without

 (15)      negotiation, is allowed.

      If, in fact, people are selfish and

rational, then the proposer should offer

the smallest possible share, while the

responder should accept any offer,

 (20)      no matter how small:  after all, even

       one dollar is better than nothing.  In

       numerous trials, however, two-thirds

of the offers made were between

40 and 50 percent; only 4 percent

 (25)      were less than 20 percent.  Among

responders, more than half who were

offered less than 20 percent rejected

the offer.  Behavior in the game did not

appreciably depend on the players’

 (30)      sex, age, or education.  Nor did the

amount of money involved play a

significant role:  for instance, in trials

       of the game that were conducted in

Indonesia, the sum to be shared was

 (35)
                    as much as three times the subjects’

average monthly income, and still

responders refused offers that they

deemed too small.

kettyxym

就是说：理论经济学家认为人类是很自私的，总是最大化自己的所得。

但是一个试验的结果却反对这个观点。

在这个试验中，将两组人放再两个不同的房间了，给其中一人一笔钱，由他决定将这笔钱分给另一个人，按照经济学家的观点，该人应该分给另个人很少的钱或基本不给，但很多次试验证明，该人的分配都是40-50%之间，并没有出现很大的差距，而另一个人也大部分都接受这样的分配，只有很少(不到20％)的人拒绝。

这个试验不分年龄性别及教育程度，也和钱的数量无关。

如再印度尼西亚，也是这样。

不够详细，但大意是这样的。

fk305301

LS的蛮精辟的，我也才做的这篇文章