For many years, theoretical economists characterized humans as rational beings relentlessly bent on maximizing purely selfish reward. 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 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 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, 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 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' 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 as much as three times the subjects' average monthly income, and still responders refused offers that they deemed too small.
The passage implies that the results of the Ultimatum Game undermine theoretical economists' characterization of human beings by

定位到整个第二段,开始说如果人是selfish and rational,那么就应该是如何如何,接着出现however,即实际情况是如何如何,也就是说,不是由 selfish and rational来控制的。选e a大多数人倾向于优势最大化,不对 b没有选择权的人如何,不对 c人们的行为是如何depends的,不对 d本能优先自己,不对

