Talk:Rotten kid theorem

The gender of the pronouns in this article make little sense. WindAndConfusion 06:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed - does the bad child have to be a son and the good child a daughter? Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC, in the original article the pronouns are that way. So at least there it makes ample sense. Also, I seem to faintly remember Becker talking rather feminist-like about a number of issues. I that really is a proper memory, then of *course* it has to be him hurting her, just to pay adage. Plus of course it's pretty difficult to go gender neutral to begin with, in English, even if in my native tongue everything could just be "it, it, it and btw it again". Decoy (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The characterization of the theorem is altogether wrong. The theorem is about the formal incentive structure elicited by a benevolent/altruistic parent, under certain conditions, not at all about whatever the current text talks about. Hence, I'll rewrite the whole thing. If you don't think my modifications are warranted, do fight back and then revert: the extant references to Becker's work actually cover the subject matter fully, but I'll try and add a bit more besides. In any case, the current text gets it all wrong. Decoy (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Now it's about right in fact, and tells you what you really ought to know. It's still covered by the references in the end, as far as I can remember. But there are still no proper inline cites, and I can't give them since I don't have the original text at hand; I write from memory here. Also, I know my style is rather stuffy, long-winded and frankly boring to anybody who's not an encyclopaedist/autist, so do take the edges off, soonest, at least there. :) Decoy (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)