I had never heard of the ‘Prisoner's Dilemma’ until recently. In essence, it is a fundamental problem in game theory that demonstrates why two people might not cooperate even if it is in both their best interests to do so.
A classic example of the prisoner's dilemma is presented as follows:
Both you and a colleague are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the two of you, visit both of you to offer the same deal. If you testify for the prosecution against your colleague (gaming term is to defect) and your colleague remains silent (cooperate), you, as the defector, will go free and your silent accomplice receives the full one-year sentence. If you both remain silent, both of you will be sentenced to only one month in jail for a minor charge. If each of you betrays the other, you will both receive a three-month custodial sentence.
You must both choose to either betray the other or to remain silent. Each of you is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation.
If we assume that each person cares only about minimizing his or her own time in jail, then rational choice would suggest both detainees defect or betray, even though each one's individual reward would be greater if they both cooperated. (If I defect/betray, then I am guaranteed to spend no longer than three months in prison.)
The classical prisoner's dilemma can be summarized thus
|
Prisoner B stays silent (cooperates) |
Prisoner B confesses (defects) |
|
|
Prisoner A stays silent (cooperates) |
Each serves 1 month |
Prisoner A: 1 year |
|
Prisoner A confesses (defects) |
Prisoner A: goes free |
Each serves 3 months |
How would you act?
Comments
RSS feed for comments to this post