The Prisoner's Dilemma

[Hibbyradge]

You may already be familiar with this, but it's a fascinating study into cooperation and competition, nonetheless.

You and I have been arrested by the police.

The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having placed us in separate cells, they visit each of us to offer the same deal.

If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence.

If both of us remain silent, we will both be sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge.

If we both betray each other, each receives a five-year sentence.

Each of us must choose to betray the other or to remain silent.

Each of us is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation.

What will you do?

(I've already made my decision.)

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/dilbert960809-9473.gif

[lapsedhibee]

What will you do?
Thank my lucky stars I didn't get caught in Qatar, where there wouldn't even have been the option, the *******s.

[Greentinted]

I wondered about the originality of this (http://www.itv.com/games/Gameshows/goldenballs/default.html). Now it all makes sense.

[Calvin]

Studied this in Economics last month as an introduction to game theory.

[discman]

You may already be familiar with this, but it's a fascinating study into cooperation and competition, nonetheless.

You and I have been arrested by the police.

The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having placed us in separate cells, they visit each of us to offer the same deal.

If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence.

If both of us remain silent, we will both be sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge.

If we both betray each other, each receives a five-year sentence.

Each of us must choose to betray the other or to remain silent.

Each of us is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation.

What will you do?

(I've already made my decision.)


Me to,given that I dont know you I grass you in a heartbeat and am out of there:bye:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Studied this in Economics last month as an introduction to game theory.

There a really interesting Adam Curtis documentary called The Trap which looks at, well the first episode does, John Nash and the RAND corporation's studies of Game Theory and their variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma titled **** You Buddy which essentially became the basis for U.S. nuclear policy during the Cold War and gave credence to Hayekian economics and public choice theory which became normalised under Thatcher and Reagan, until it transpired that it really didn't work.

Nash, of course, was a paranoid schizophrenic - which no-one knew - and later acknowledged that this had made him completely discount human being's propensity for cooperation (he tried the game out on the secretaries in the RAND Corporation but they were discounted as 'unfit subjects' because they all cooperated rather than ****ing people over).

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Does game theory in the wider sense not depend on folks being rational? Then enter stage left Hussein and that nutter from Iran
I dont know you therefore assume you are out for yourself therefore we both end up shafting each other and thereby get the wost outcome
Collusion and discipline required here ...

[CropleyWasGod]

Does game theory in the wider sense not depend on folks being rational? Then enter stage left Hussein and that nutter from Iran
I dont know you therefore assume you are out for yourself therefore we both end up shafting each other and thereby get the wost outcome
Collusion and discipline required here ...

But then are you not applying a subjective notion of what is "rational"? To many, in the 1930's, Hitler was a hero.

<disappear up own a*se smiley>

[--------]

You may already be familiar with this, but it's a fascinating study into cooperation and competition, nonetheless.

You and I have been arrested by the police.

The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having placed us in separate cells, they visit each of us to offer the same deal.

If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence.

If both of us remain silent, we will both be sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge.

If we both betray each other, each receives a five-year sentence.

Each of us must choose to betray the other or to remain silent.

Each of us is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation.

What will you do?

(I've already made my decision.)



Lawyer. NOW. :devil:

[Jack]

To any kids looking in the simple solution is not to get yourself in this position in the first place.
.
Be good to yourself and be as nice to others as they are to you.

[CropleyWasGod]

To any kids looking in the simple solution is not to get yourself in this position in the first place.
.
Be good to yourself and be as nice to others as they are to you.

So shop the ******* then? :greengrin

[Jack]

So shop the ******* then? :greengrin

it wiznae me ... Obviously!

[Viva_Palmeiras]

But then are you not applying a subjective notion of what is "rational"? To many, in the 1930's, Hitler was a hero.

<disappear up own a*se smiley>
? Someone get out the wrong side of the bed ?

[CropleyWasGod]

? Someone get out the wrong side of the bed ?

Eh?:confused:

Not at all. Thought it was a reasonable thing to say, and a valid point.

[Mibbes Aye]

? Someone get out the wrong side of the bed ?

Are you thinking CWG's "disappear up my own arse" tag was directed at you?

I thought he was directing it at himself, because he made a good and valid point but also took it up a level and was firewalling himself against any accusations of over-intellectualising it :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Are you thinking CWG's "disappear up my own arse" tag was directed at you?

I thought he was directing it at himself, because he made a good and valid point but also took it up a level and was firewalling himself against any accusations of over-intellectualising it :greengrin

Bloody hell..... Ban Ki Moon's on here :greengrin

You are correct in your understanding of my post. And I, for my part, hadn't thought that it might be interpreted in another way.

Over-intellectualising on Hibs. net? It's not possible, sir. We are forever pushing the envelope. :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Bloody hell..... Ban Ki Moon's on here :greengrin

You are correct in your understanding of my post. And I, for my part, hadn't thought that it might be interpreted in another way.

Over-intellectualising on Hibs. net? It's not possible, sir. We are forever pushing the envelope. :wink:

Me neither. It just goes to show :greengrin

Back to the point though, I agree! Let the envelope be pushed :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

Me neither. It just goes to show :greengrin

Back to the point though, I agree! Let the envelope be pushed :agree:

If you've put my name in the envelope and pushed it under the polis' door, you're in big trouble.

[Mibbes Aye]

If you've put my name in the envelope and pushed it under the polis' door, you're in big trouble.

:faf:

And the scary thing is that Hibbyradge has already put one of us in the frame for a ten stretch :agree:

[Hibbyradge]

There a really interesting Adam Curtis documentary called The Trap which looks at, well the first episode does, John Nash and the RAND corporation's studies of Game Theory and their variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma titled **** You Buddy which essentially became the basis for U.S. nuclear policy during the Cold War and gave credence to Hayekian economics and public choice theory which became normalised under Thatcher and Reagan, until it transpired that it really didn't work.

Nash, of course, was a paranoid schizophrenic - which no-one knew - and later acknowledged that this had made him completely discount human being's propensity for cooperation (he tried the game out on the secretaries in the RAND Corporation but they were discounted as 'unfit subjects' because they all cooperated rather than ****ing people over).


Does game theory in the wider sense not depend on folks being rational? Then enter stage left Hussein and that nutter from Iran
I dont know you therefore assume you are out for yourself therefore we both end up shafting each other and thereby get the wost outcome
Collusion and discipline required here ...

The "rational" thing to do is to defect.

[Hibby D]

The "rational" thing to do is to defect.

But is it the right thing to do? Or does that not matter?:confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

But is it the right thing to do? Or does that not matter?:confused:

"Right" and "rational" don't always coincide, which is probably the crux of the thread.

[Hibby D]

"Right" and "rational" don't always coincide, which is probably the crux of the thread.



But who decides what's rational? Society has taught me to determine what is the right and acceptable way to behave and I use my rationale to achieve that. But in this scenario, if I go for the perceived "rational" choice i.e. to defect, then in my book I'm being irrational because I'm not doing the right thing by me or my friend.

I'd stick to protecting my friend. And if everything I've learned in life has led to this moment, then I know without doubt that my friend will do the same and we'll celebrate over a beer in 6 months time :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

But who decides what's rational? Society has taught me to determine what is the right and acceptable way to behave and I use my rationale to achieve that. But in this scenario, if I go for the perceived "rational" choice i.e. to defect, then in my book I'm being irrational because I'm not doing the right thing by me or my friend.

I'd stick to protecting my friend. And if everything I've learned in life has led to this moment, then I know without doubt that my friend will do the same and we'll celebrate over a beer in 6 months time :agree:

I think the point I'm trying to make is that "right" is often conditioned behaviour (conditioned by parents, peers, the environment).... which is the emotional response, what you FEEL. "Rational" is what you THINK, the intellectual response.

Of course, the two co-incide, and for most of us our responses are a mixture of the two. It often, too, depends on how we are at the time, and the particular situation.... even what sex we are (the claim, for example, that women are more intuitive).

Fascinating.

[Removed]

It's a bit like your train video D. The right thing to do is jump on the track and save the guy and that would go along with everything I was taught growing up and my instilled values so right, rational and conditioned would co-incide on that occasion. But Houchy was right, throw a yam scarf into the equation and who knows :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

It's a bit like your train video D. The right thing to do is jump on the track and save the guy and that would go along with everything I was taught growing up and my instilled values so right, rational and conditioned would co-incide on that occasion. But Houchy was right, throw a yam scarf into the equation and who knows :greengrin

Why the F would you want to save a pink scarf?

You can get dusters and bog roll out of Tesco quite cheap, without risking your life.

Not rational. And definitely not right.:grr:

[Hibby D]

I think the point I'm trying to make is that "right" is often conditioned behaviour (conditioned by parents, peers, the environment).... which is the emotional response, what you FEEL. "Rational" is what you THINK, the intellectual response.

Of course, the two co-incide, and for most of us our responses are a mixture of the two. It often, too, depends on how we are at the time, and the particular situation.... even what sex we are (the claim, for example, that women are more intuitive).

Fascinating.

So are you suggesting then that I'm letting my heart rule my head and the consequence is that I'm going to do a ten stretch in Prisoner Cell Block H whilst my so called friend is going to be supping pina coladas in Bali? :grr::grr:


It's a bit like your train video D. The right thing to do is jump on the track and save the guy and that would go along with everything I was taught growing up and my instilled values so right, rational and conditioned would co-incide on that occasion. But Houchy was right, throw a yam scarf into the equation and who knows :greengrin

Or a so-called friend who's just stitched me up :grr:

Ah sugar puffs and a debate - I love Sundays :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

So are you suggesting then that I'm letting my heart rule my head and the consequence is that I'm going to do a ten stretch in Prisoner Cell Block H whilst my so called friend is going to be supping pina coladas in Bali? :grr::grr:



Or a so-called friend who's just stitched me up :grr:

Ah sugar puffs and a debate - I love Sundays :greengrin

Is your friend good-looking?

[Woody1985]

No comment.:greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

But who decides what's rational? Society has taught me to determine what is the right and acceptable way to behave and I use my rationale to achieve that. But in this scenario, if I go for the perceived "rational" choice i.e. to defect, then in my book I'm being irrational because I'm not doing the right thing by me or my friend.

I'd stick to protecting my friend. And if everything I've learned in life has led to this moment, then I know without doubt that my friend will do the same and we'll celebrate over a beer in 6 months time :agree:

:love ya!:

[Hibbyradge]

In this game, regardless of what the opponent chooses, each player always receives a higher payoff (lesser sentence) by betraying; that is to say that betraying is the strictly dominant strategy.

For instance, Prisoner A can accurately say, "No matter what Prisoner B does, I personally am better off betraying than staying silent. Therefore, for my own sake, I should betray."

However, if the other player acts similarly, then they both betray and both get a lower payoff than they would get by staying silent.

Rational self-interested decisions result in each prisoner being worse off than if each chose to lessen the sentence of the accomplice at the cost of staying a little longer in jail himself (hence the seeming dilemma).

[Hibby D]

Is your friend good-looking?

Have you not met Radge man?

:drool:

[Hibbyradge]

Think about the Cuban missile crisis.

Possible outcomes were:

I Win, You Lose

You Lose, I Win

I Lose, You Lose

I Win, You Win.

The possibility of I lose, you win was worse than anything else so Lose, Lose was the obvious likely outcome.

Incredibly, they won, won.

There's a lesson about communication in here too.

[Hibbyradge]

Have you not met Radge man?

:drool:

:faf:

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Are you thinking CWG's "disappear up my own arse" tag was directed at you?

I thought he was directing it at himself, because he made a good and valid point but also took it up a level and was firewalling himself against any accusations of over-intellectualising it :greengrin
My or your wasn't expressed so I got the wrong end of the stick - doh!

[CropleyWasGod]

My or your wasn't expressed so I got the wrong end of the stick - doh!

No problem. :wink:

Just keep that stick away from my arse, lest it disappears too !!

[Hibby D]

No problem. :wink:

Just keep that stick away from my arse, lest it disappears too !!

How would you arse disappear??? Is it a magic stick? :confused:


Oh God I love the English language :hilarious