The Regret at Hao Bridge
— When a "Debating Rival" Becomes "Prime Minister"

"Since the Master's death, I have no one left to serve as my counterpart." — This lament by Zhuangzi at Huizi's grave is one of the most moving eulogies in the history of Chinese thought.^[1] Two of the most brilliant debaters of the pre-Qin era — from the celebrated "Hao Bridge Debate" to the biting sarcasm of the "owl guarding a dead rat," and finally to endless remembrance after death — what transformations did their relationship undergo? When one party shifts from "debating rival" to "prime minister," does the fundamental game structure of the friendship change?

I. The "Market Structure" of Friendship: Scarcity and Matching

Let us begin with a perspective that may seem cold but is profoundly insightful: friendship can be understood as a "matching market."^[2]

The matching theory of 2012 Nobel laureates in Economics Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley demonstrates that in bilateral markets, stable matches depend on the relative preferences of both parties and their available alternatives.^[3] Applying this framework to friendship, we can ask: What made Zhuangzi and Huizi the "best match" for each other?

The answer lies in intellectual scarcity.

During the Warring States period, individuals capable of engaging in high-level philosophical debate were already rare. Those who could challenge Zhuangzi at the metaphysical level were rarer still. The Zhuangzi records:

"Hui Shi was a man of many methods; his writings filled five carts."^[4]

Hui Shi was the leading figure of the School of Names (Mingjia), renowned for his logical argumentation. His "Ten Theses on Things" demonstrated profound reflection on language, concepts, and existence.^[5] In the "intellectual marketplace" of his time, Hui Shi was an extremely scarce resource — someone who could comprehend the depth of Zhuangzi's thought and mount a formidable challenge.

Economist Gary Becker noted in his theory of marriage markets: the stability of a match depends on both parties' "outside options."^[6] When outside options are limited, existing matches become more stable. For Zhuangzi, Hui Shi was irreplaceable — not only because of his intellectual caliber, but because of his willingness to engage in "non-utilitarian" dialogue.

This passage from the "Tianxia" chapter of the Zhuangzi reveals the essence of this scarcity:

"Day after day Hui Shi used his wit to argue with others, and he alone among the debaters of the world produced extraordinary propositions."^[7]

Hui Shi was someone who "delighted in debate," and Zhuangzi equally needed such an opponent. In an era where fame and fortune were the dominant values, this kind of pure intellectual pleasure was itself a scarce commodity. Their friendship was a "bilateral monopoly" matching of scarce resources.^[8]

II. "Intellectual Parity" as the Implicit Contract of Friendship

The relationship between Zhuangzi and Huizi can be understood through the economic theory of "incomplete contracts."^[9] Friendship — especially intellectual friendship — is never a written agreement, but rather a set of implicit expectations and norms.

What was the core clause of this "implicit contract"? I would argue it was intellectual parity.

Sociologist Peter Blau noted in his social exchange theory: stable social relationships are built on "exchange equilibrium."^[10] When one party consistently gives while the other consistently receives, the relationship becomes unstable. In the relationship between Zhuangzi and Huizi, what was being "exchanged"?

• Intellectual challenge: Each served as the other's whetstone for thought
• The pleasure of debate: Each was the other's stage for displaying wisdom
• Mutual recognition: Each was a witness to the other's intellectual worth

The Hao Bridge Debate is the perfect illustration of this "reciprocal exchange":

Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling on the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, "See how the minnows dart about freely — that is the happiness of fish." Huizi replied, "You are not a fish — how do you know what makes fish happy?" Zhuangzi said, "You are not me — how do you know I don't know what makes fish happy?"^[11]

This dialogue displays perfect symmetry: the two were evenly matched in debate, with neither holding a clear advantage. This symmetry — this "intellectual parity" — was the critical condition sustaining the friendship.^[12]

Aristotle observed long ago in the Nicomachean Ethics: true friendship (philia) must be founded on equality.^[13] When a vast gap in virtue, wisdom, or status exists between two parties, the relationship degenerates from friendship into something else — patronage, dependency, or exploitation.

The problem was: this implicit contract contained no provisions for "what happens if one party's status changes dramatically."

III. Status Asymmetry: A Fundamental Change in the Game Structure

Hui Shi's appointment as Prime Minister of the State of Wei was the turning point in this friendship.^[14]

From a game-theoretic perspective, this event fundamentally altered the "game structure" of their interaction.^[15] Let us analyze this transformation:

3.1 Change in Information Structure

Before Hui Shi became prime minister, their interaction was a form of "complete information game" — the motives, abilities, and preferences of both parties were transparent.^[16] But the role of prime minister introduced information asymmetry:

• Hui Shi now had "things he could not say" — state secrets, political considerations
• Zhuangzi could no longer be certain whether any of Hui Shi's actions stemmed from "friendship" or "political calculation"
• Hui Shi, in turn, could not be sure whether Zhuangzi's visits were motivated by "pure friendship" or "ulterior motives"

This information asymmetry created a trust problem. Economist George Akerlof's "market for lemons" theory shows that when one party possesses private information that the other cannot verify, the market fails.^[17] The same applies to friendship — when one party begins to inhabit an "unshareable world," the foundation of the relationship starts to erode.

3.2 Change in Payoff Structure

The core of game theory is the analysis of "payoffs" — the benefits each participant derives from different actions.^[18] After Hui Shi became prime minister, his payoff structure changed fundamentally:

• Opportunity cost of time: Every moment spent debating with Zhuangzi was a moment lost from attending to affairs of state
• Reputational risk: Associating with "hermits" and "eccentrics" could damage his political image
• Power maintenance: Every social interaction now had to be weighed for its political implications

More importantly, Hui Shi now had "better outside options." As prime minister, he could socialize with feudal lords, ministers, and foreign envoys — people who were far more "useful" politically. Economics tells us that when outside options improve, the relative attractiveness of existing relationships declines.^[19]

3.3 Power Asymmetry and the Poison of "Favor"

The "Autumn Floods" chapter of the Zhuangzi records a profoundly telling story:

Hui Shi was serving as Prime Minister of Liang. Zhuangzi went to visit him. Someone told Hui Shi: "Zhuangzi is coming because he wants to replace you as prime minister." Hui Shi grew alarmed and had the capital searched for three days and three nights. Zhuangzi went to see him and said: "In the south there is a bird called the yuanchu — do you know of it? ... Now do you mean to frighten me with your state of Liang?"^[20]

This story reveals the fundamental problem of power asymmetry: Hui Shi began to view Zhuangzi through the eyes of a power-holder. He assumed Zhuangzi's visit was aimed at "seizing his position" — an assumption that was itself a betrayal of friendship.

The deeper issue is this: when one party holds power, anything they can offer the other becomes a "favor." And favors, as Marcel Mauss analyzed in The Gift, create relationships of unequal obligation, not equal friendship.^[21]

Zhuangzi used the metaphor of the "owl guarding a dead rat" to reject this dynamic: he would rather preserve the freedom of poverty than accept a "favor" that would alter the nature of their relationship.^[22] This was not mere loftiness, but a defense of the essence of friendship — once one accepts the beneficence of a power-holder, one is no longer a "friend," but a "dependent."

IV. "Renegotiating" the Relationship: Why It Always Failed

When the foundational conditions of a relationship change, the participants must "renegotiate" its terms.^[23] However, Zhuangzi and Hui Shi never seem to have successfully completed such a renegotiation. Why?

4.1 Asymmetry in Bargaining Position

In any negotiation, "bargaining power" depends on each party's outside options (BATNA — Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement).^[24] As prime minister, Hui Shi's BATNA was clearly superior — he could easily find other social partners. This asymmetry made "fair" renegotiation virtually impossible.

Economist John Nash's bargaining solution demonstrates: the outcome of a negotiation depends on each party's "threat point."^[25] What was Zhuangzi's threat point? He could "cease all contact" — but the resulting loss to Hui Shi would likely be far smaller than the loss to Zhuangzi. This asymmetry placed Zhuangzi at a disadvantage in any negotiation.

4.2 Conflict of Identity

The deeper problem lay in identity. Zhuangzi's core identity was that of a "free wanderer," a "seeker of the Dao"; Hui Shi's new identity was that of a "power-holder," a "manager of state." These two identities were fundamentally in tension.^[26]

Sociologist Erving Goffman's "dramaturgical theory" observed: we play different roles in different settings.^[27] Hui Shi now had to switch between "prime minister" and "friend" — but these two roles may have been incompatible. As prime minister, he needed to project authority, caution, and shrewd calculation; as Zhuangzi's friend, he needed to display openness, spontaneity, and transcendence of utility.

When a person is forced to choose between two incompatible identities, they typically choose the one that yields greater social rewards. For Hui Shi, the identity of "prime minister" offered rewards — power, status, influence — that far exceeded those of being "Zhuangzi's debating partner."

4.3 The Trap of Sunk Costs

Ironically, the beautiful memories of the past may have become an obstacle to renegotiation.^[28] Psychological research shows: people tend to evaluate "present relationships" against the benchmark of "past relationships."^[29]

Zhuangzi remembered the Hui Shi on the Hao Bridge — the one who took pure delight in debate, the evenly matched opponent. He may not have been able to accept "Prime Minister Hui Shi" as a new version. Likewise, Hui Shi may have remembered Zhuangzi as the occasion where he could "relax and be himself" — but by now, he may no longer have been able to "relax and be himself."

This attachment to the "past version" prevented both parties from adapting to a new relational structure. They were trying to return to a world that no longer existed, rather than establishing a new equilibrium under new conditions.

V. Uniqueness and Irreplaceability: "I Have No One Left to Serve as My Counterpart"

Zhuangzi's lament after Hui Shi's death is the key to understanding this relationship:

"Since the Master's death, I have no one left to serve as my counterpart. I have no one left to talk with."^[30]

The word "counterpart" (zhi) here means "opponent" or "one who sharpens you."^[31] This statement reveals a profound economic insight: Hui Shi was completely irreplaceable to Zhuangzi.

5.1 Differentiation and Monopoly Status

Industrial economics tells us: when a product possesses unique attributes that cannot be substituted, it holds monopoly status.^[32] Hui Shi was precisely such a "monopolistic asset" to Zhuangzi:

• Intellectual caliber: Able to comprehend and challenge Zhuangzi's most profound ideas
• Debating style: Known for logical rigor, complementing Zhuangzi's intuitive leaps
• Shared history: Years of interaction had built a unique "language of debate"
• Seriousness of engagement: An opponent who genuinely treated debate as a matter of importance

This combination of attributes was one of a kind. In the "intellectual marketplace" of the Warring States period, no one could replicate this combination.^[33]

5.2 The Scarce Value of a "Debating Rival"

Here lies a counterintuitive insight: a true "debating rival" is scarcer and more valuable than a "supporter."^[34]

Supporters tell you what you already know; rivals force you to confront questions you would rather avoid. Supporters reinforce your convictions; rivals challenge your blind spots. Supporters make you feel good; rivals make you grow.

John Stuart Mill offered a brilliant observation in On Liberty:

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."^[35]

Hui Shi was the only person who could "fully present the other side of the argument" to Zhuangzi. The logical rigor of the School of Names and the intuitive wisdom of Daoism formed a perfect dialectical unity.^[36] Without Hui Shi, Zhuangzi's thought lost its "whetstone" — he might have become more "correct," but also more "boring."

5.3 The Dilemma of Asset Specificity

Economist Oliver Williamson (2009 Nobel laureate in Economics) argued in his transaction cost theory: when an asset has a high degree of "specificity," its holder faces a "hold-up" problem.^[37]

Zhuangzi had invested heavily in "relationship-specific assets" — developing a unique debating rapport with Hui Shi, a shared intellectual language, and mutually understood modes of thinking. These investments were non-transferable to other relationships.

This explains why Zhuangzi grieved so deeply over Hui Shi's death: it was not merely the loss of a friend, but the loss of an entire set of "non-liquidable" relational assets.^[38] All the skills honed through debating with Hui Shi, all the ability to predict Hui Shi's responses, all the intellectual frameworks jointly constructed — all became worthless with Hui Shi's passing.

VI. Competitive vs. Complementary Friendship: Two Game Structures

The relationship between Zhuangzi and Huizi helps us distinguish between two fundamentally different types of friendship: competitive friendship and complementary friendship.^[39]

6.1 Competitive Friendship: The Temptation of Zero-Sum

Competitive friendship is built on "comparison": Who is smarter? Who is more successful? Whose argument is more persuasive? The structure of this friendship resembles a "zero-sum game" — one party's "win" implies the other's "loss."^[40]

Part of the interaction between Zhuangzi and Huizi carried this competitive character. In the Hao Bridge Debate, both tried to "outmaneuver" the other logically. This competition brought excitement and pleasure — but also potential danger.

When Hui Shi became prime minister, the "competitive" dimension suddenly expanded beyond debate. Now, Hui Shi had "won" in the dimension of "social achievement." This asymmetry may have intensified what was once a healthy rivalry into something destructive.^[41]

6.2 Complementary Friendship: The Possibility of Positive-Sum

Complementary friendship is built on "differences": both parties possess distinct strengths and, through cooperation, make each other better. The structure of this friendship resembles a "positive-sum game" — both parties benefit from the relationship.^[42]

From another angle, the relationship between Zhuangzi and Huizi also had a complementary dimension: the intuition of Daoism and the logic of the School of Names, the transcendence of "greatness without utility" and the rigor of "precise discrimination." Their debates were not merely about "determining a winner," but about "joint exploration" — each debate enriched both their intellectual worlds.^[43]

The problem was: when external circumstances changed, the relationship slid from "complementary" toward "competitive." Hui Shi's success may have made Zhuangzi feel — even subconsciously — that he had in some sense "lost." Meanwhile, Hui Shi's suspicion (searching for Zhuangzi for three days and three nights) showed he had begun to regard Zhuangzi as a "competitor" rather than a "complement."^[44]

6.3 Shifting the Type of Game

A key insight from game theory is: the same relationship can be framed as different types of games, and this framing influences the participants' behavior.^[45]

If Zhuangzi and Huizi had framed their relationship as "collaborative intellectual exploration" (a positive-sum game), then Hui Shi's political success would not have threatened the relationship — because "debating ability" and "political ability" are different dimensions.

But if they — intentionally or not — framed the relationship as "who is the more successful person" (a zero-sum game), then Hui Shi's success would shatter the existing equilibrium.^[46]

The metaphor of the "owl guarding a dead rat" shows that Zhuangzi tried to reframe the game: he declared that he simply did not care about the dimension of "political success," thus rendering Hui Shi's achievements meaningless to him. This was a clever strategy — preserving the complementary nature of the relationship by "exiting" the competitive dimension.^[47]

However, the problem with this strategy was: it was unilateral. Zhuangzi could declare his indifference, but Hui Shi might still have believed that Zhuangzi cared — or worse, Hui Shi himself might have begun to look down on Zhuangzi from the vantage point of the "successful man."

VII. The Incredibility of Commitment: Why "Not Caring" Is Hard to Believe

Zhuangzi declared that he did not care about Hui Shi's political position and wanted nothing in the way of political advantage. But was this declaration a "credible commitment"?^[48]

Game theory tells us: a commitment is credible only when the cost of lying exceeds the benefit of lying.^[49]

The problem was that Zhuangzi's declaration of "not caring" was "cheap talk" — making such a statement bore no cost.^[50] From Hui Shi's perspective:

• If Zhuangzi truly did not care, he would say so
• If Zhuangzi was pretending not to care (to lower Hui Shi's guard), he would also say so
• Hui Shi could not distinguish between the two cases

This is a classic "signaling failure" problem.^[51] Under conditions of information asymmetry, the "good type" (someone who genuinely does not care) cannot effectively distinguish themselves from the "bad type" (someone who pretends not to care).

Even more ironically: the more emphatically Zhuangzi insisted he "did not care," the more suspicious Hui Shi may have become. Psychological research shows that excessive denial actually arouses suspicion.^[52] Zhuangzi's use of a metaphor as extreme as the "owl guarding a dead rat" may have actually reinforced Hui Shi's suspicion — "Why does he need to put it so drastically?"

VIII. The Endgame of Friendship: Tragedy or Inevitability?

Let us return to the original question: Why did the friendship between Zhuangzi and Huizi deteriorate?

From a game-theoretic perspective, the answer may be: this was a problem of "institutional failure."^[53]

Their friendship was built upon a specific "institutional environment" — two intellectuals who existed on the margins of politics, engaged in intellectual exchange under conditions of relative equality. This institutional environment provided:

• Symmetry: Both parties held comparable status, with no power imbalance
• Transparency: There were no unshareable secrets
• Purity: Their interactions were free from utilitarian considerations

When Hui Shi entered the political world, this institutional environment was shattered. The new environment could not support the existing relationship model — it required different rules, different expectations, and different modes of interaction.^[54]

Their tragedy was not the "fault" of either party, but the inevitable consequence of institutional change.

8.1 Could There Have Been a Different Outcome?

This does not mean, however, that the deterioration of the friendship was entirely unavoidable. In theory, several strategies for "preserving the friendship" existed:

1. Explicit relational compartmentalization: Establishing clear rules to separate the "public" from the "private." In private settings, Hui Shi would completely set aside his identity as prime minister; in public settings, Zhuangzi would never leverage the private relationship.^[55]

2. New balancing mechanisms: Finding something Hui Shi could offer that would not create imbalance. Perhaps knowledge, perhaps introductions to other interesting people — but not power or money.

3. Accepting the asymmetry: Both parties explicitly acknowledging that the relationship had changed and rebuilding their patterns of interaction on a new foundation. This would require exceptional self-awareness and communication ability.^[56]

However, each of these strategies is extraordinarily difficult in practice. Human beings are not skilled at explicitly negotiating implicit contracts. Moreover, once trust is damaged, the cost of rebuilding it is often prohibitively high.^[57]

IX. Conclusion: On the Bridge at Hao

Let us return to the bridge at Hao.

At that moment, Zhuangzi and Huizi stood on the bridge, watching the fish in the water, engaged in their most celebrated debate. That was the "crowning moment" of their relationship — two equal souls, crossing swords in the pure pleasure of intellectual exchange.

Economics and game theory can help us understand why this relationship deteriorated. Status asymmetry, information asymmetry, changes in payoff structure, trust problems, the incredibility of commitment, shifts in game type — these structural factors conspired to make an originally beautiful friendship unsustainable.

But these analytical tools also deepen our appreciation for those bonds that transcend structure. Zhuangzi's lament at Hui Shi's grave reveals that even after the relationship had soured, the core connection — the mutual intellectual need, the mutual spiritual recognition — never truly disappeared.

"Since the Master's death, I have no one left to serve as my counterpart."

The sorrow of this statement lies in this: Zhuangzi could only make such a frank admission after Hui Shi's death — that he needed Hui Shi. While both were alive, admitting need was too difficult. The asymmetry of power, the conflict of identities, the cracks in trust — all made candor a dangerous act.

Perhaps this is the story's most profound lesson: we can often fully understand our most important relationships only after we have lost them.

On the bridge at Hao that afternoon, neither man knew that this may have been the purest moment of their relationship. Afterward, the world would intervene, power would distort, and suspicion would take root. But in that moment, there was only the fish, the water, and two souls challenging each other.

Economics can explain why that moment was so rare. But it cannot replace it — only those who lived within it could truly grasp how precious it was.

References

1. Zhuangzi, "Xu Wugui" chapter: "Zhuangzi was attending a funeral procession and passed the grave of Huizi. He turned to his attendants and said: 'A man of Ying had a speck of plaster on the tip of his nose, thin as a fly's wing, and he had the artisan Shi slice it off. Artisan Shi swung his adze with the force of a gale, and sliced the plaster clean away without harming the nose, while the man of Ying stood there without flinching. When Duke Yuan of Song heard of this, he summoned Artisan Shi and said: "Try doing it for me." But Artisan Shi said: "I was once able to perform such a feat. However, my counterpart has long been dead." Since the Master's death, I have no one left to serve as my counterpart. I have no one left to talk with.'" Guo Qingfan, Collected Commentaries on the Zhuangzi (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1961), pp. 867–868.
2. Roth, A. E. (2015). Who Gets What — and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
3. Gale, D., & Shapley, L. S. (1962). College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly, 69(1), 9-15. DOI
4. Zhuangzi, "Tianxia" chapter. Guo Qingfan, Collected Commentaries on the Zhuangzi, p. 1102.
5. Graham, A. C. (1989). Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. Open Court. For analysis of Hui Shi's "Ten Theses on Things," see pp. 75–95.
6. Becker, G. S. (1973). A Theory of Marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813-846. DOI
7. Zhuangzi, "Tianxia" chapter. Guo Qingfan, Collected Commentaries on the Zhuangzi, p. 1103.
8. For analysis of bilateral monopoly, see Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261.
9. Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1988). Incomplete Contracts and Renegotiation. Econometrica, 56(4), 755-785. DOI
10. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley & Sons.
11. Zhuangzi, "Autumn Floods" chapter. Guo Qingfan, Collected Commentaries on the Zhuangzi, pp. 606–607.
12. Chen Guying (2016). Modern Annotation and Translation of the Zhuangzi. Beijing: Commercial Press, pp. 453–456. On the philosophical analysis of the Hao Bridge Debate.
13. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, Books VIII-IX. On the relationship between friendship and equality, see Cooper, J. M. (1977). Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship. The Review of Metaphysics, 30(4), 619-648.
14. Records of the Grand Historian, "Biographies of Mencius and Xunzi": "Hui Shi served as Prime Minister of Wei." Sima Qian, Records of the Grand Historian (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1959), Vol. 74.
15. For analysis of game structures in game theory, see Myerson, R. B. (1991). Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard University Press.
16. Harsanyi, J. C. (1967). Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III. Management Science, 14(3), 159-182. DOI
17. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500. DOI
18. Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press.
19. On the impact of outside options on relationship stability, see Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and Satisfaction in Romantic Associations: A Test of the Investment Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172-186.
20. Zhuangzi, "Autumn Floods" chapter. Guo Qingfan, Collected Commentaries on the Zhuangzi, pp. 600–601.
21. Mauss, M. (1925/1990). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Trans. W. D. Halls. W. W. Norton.
22. Mou Zongsan (1983). Talent and Metaphysical Principles. Taipei: Student Book Co., pp. 234–256. On Zhuangzi's attitude toward power.
23. Hart, O. (1995). Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure. Oxford University Press. On the renegotiation of contracts.
24. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
25. Nash, J. F. (1950). The Bargaining Problem. Econometrica, 18(2), 155-162. DOI
26. On identity and social roles, see Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237.
27. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.
28. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60. On the sunk cost fallacy.
29. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad Is Stronger Than Good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
30. Zhuangzi, "Xu Wugui" chapter. Guo Qingfan, Collected Commentaries on the Zhuangzi, pp. 867–868.
31. Wang Xianqian (1983). Collected Explanations of the Zhuangzi. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, p. 287. On the exegesis of the character "zhi" (counterpart).
32. Tirole, J. (1988). The Theory of Industrial Organization. MIT Press.
33. Feng Youlan (1948). A History of Chinese Philosophy. Shanghai: Commercial Press, pp. 210–230. On the comparison between the School of Names and Daoism.
34. Mill, J. S. (1859/2006). On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. Penguin Classics.
35. Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty, Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.
36. Xu Fuguan (1966). A History of Chinese Theories of Human Nature: The Pre-Qin Period. Taipei: Taiwan Commercial Press, pp. 340–380. On the interaction between Daoism and the School of Names.
37. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press. On the analysis of asset specificity.
38. Klein, B., Crawford, R. G., & Alchian, A. A. (1978). Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process. Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2), 297-326.
39. On the distinction between competitive and cooperative friendships, see Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and Adaptation in the Life Course. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 355-370.
40. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.
41. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model of Social Behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181-227.
42. Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.
43. Cheng Zhongying (1977). Chinese Philosophy and Chinese Culture. Taipei: Sanmin Book Co., pp. 89–120. On the dialectical interaction between the School of Names and Daoism.
44. Fiske, A. P. (1992). The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723.
45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
46. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. John Wiley & Sons.
47. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press.
48. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.
49. Dixit, A. K., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1991). Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life. W. W. Norton.
50. Crawford, V. P., & Sobel, J. (1982). Strategic Information Transmission. Econometrica, 50(6), 1431-1451. DOI
51. Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374. DOI
52. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
53. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
54. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade. Cambridge University Press.
55. Zerubavel, E. (1991). The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life. Free Press.
56. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an Interpersonal Process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 367-389). John Wiley & Sons.
57. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 114-139). Sage Publications.