Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

The prisoner dillema is actually one of those things I find repugnant.

You find game theory repugnant? It is simple mathematics, the logic is immune to moral judgement.
It is how humans interact that you are fully entitles to dislike.

The theory on its own doesn't say anything it just gives a situation.

It is the conclusion it comes up with (that isn't simple mathematics or simple logic) that I have an issue with.

It is basically "Screw people over because they might screw you over" in a nutshell. I have an issue with it because it is a theory on anti-cooperation.

And yes, I agree, I find it just kind of fucked up. I remember playing it in college, I was basically a bellend even though I'm usually a very nice guy and the guy who played it with, while normally brash and assertive, kept trying to compromise. It made me upset 

Especially when you realise that people apply the Prisoner's dillema to everything.

And why not? EVERYONE has the ability to severely injure you.

[PanH]

 
It can be resumed as a table.
 
1/2   |     D     |      S
-----------------------------
D     |     2      |      0/10
-----------------------------
S      |  10/0   |       0.5       
 
Crappy table, but that'll do. D being denounce, and S silence.
The logics is that you should denounce the other guy. Though, if repeated at certain number of times, silence becomes the best option. The optimal solution to betray is for short term only.
 
There's another funny dilemma like that (though no relation on the situation). 2 countries are hostiles, and they each want an island. One country (you) have the island, as well as a bridge to this island from your main land. The other country threatens of war. But neither of you wants war (which means, war is the worst option in this dilemma). You can fight, or you can retreat by the bridge. What do you do ?
 
Ninja'ed, though I expected it.
 

[Neonivek]

You blow them up of course. That is the logical outcome of the Prisoner's dilemma.

Which is kinda the odd thing about the Prisoner's dilemma. It just feels like a "Everyone loses" scenario.

[PanH]

Nope, there is a better solution.

[misko27]

You blow them up of course. That is the logical outcome of the Prisoner's dilemma.

You are just upset that logical people will logically come to the same conclusion and blow each other up.
 
It's Science, you can't debate it. You can debate the significance.
 
There is somewhere a record of a hundred iterations of it, done with real money (although in cents) of two researchers at the RAND corporation Both are familiar with the rules. Interesting results, proves the logic isn't clear with either long term interation or straightforward.

I wish I remembered where that book was. Don't remember their names. Remember the Book though.

[Korbac]

There's always another solution - fool (if necessary ) the court psych that you're mad, for example. XD

[Max White]

The idea is that it presents a very clear cut and logical format to better understand how and why things are.

In real life, neither would talk because otherwise they get branded a snitch and bad things happen to them.

[Neonivek]

It's Science, you can't debate it.

It isn't science and you can debate science.

Honestly the prisoner's dilemma is just about explaining why you would take an intentional loss because of an unknown outcome.

[Karnewarrior]

Besides, a prisoners dillemma degrades as you add more options, and there's always a third option. Sometimes it's just hard to find.

[Neonivek]

Besides, a prisoners dillemma degrades as you add more options, and there's always a third option. Sometimes it's just hard to find.

It doesn't degrade it evapourates.

As well the secret to the prisoner's dillema is that while you are supposed to snitch, you are supposed to tell the prisoner that you are snitching so you can both snitch on eachother.

The Dillema is supposed to be binary.

[misko27]

It's Science, you can't debate it.

It isn't science and you can debate science.

Fine then. It's MATH. There is no debating math. Logic, more specifically. It's a constant, a proven theorem. One does no just pick and choose which to believe! It is as true as The Pythagorean theroem.
 
Assigning deepere meaning to it is the problem you and most people have. It, is about, numbers. It is very simple. You have no reason to co-operate, plus THEY have no reason to cooperate, which is also a factor in your mind which is a factor in THEIR mind. Logically, and comparing the outcomes, you both screw yourselves over. And you're probably both realize that. If you could communicate, you would co-operate. But you don;t know his mind.
 
But Humans are not math, and sometimes it breaks down. Which is why I want that damn table.

[PanH]

The prisoner's dilemma is indeed binary.
 
For the island dilemma, there is a way that ensures that there'll be no war and that you'll keep the island : burn the bridge.

[Max White]

It is as true as The Pythagorean theroem.

You mean subject to the axiom that we are working on a euclidean plane?
How would a non-euclidean prisoner's dilemma even work?

[Neonivek]

You have no reason to co-operate, plus THEY have no reason to cooperate

That isn't the prisoner's dillema. The Prisoner's dilemma is ultimately that the option where you both co-operate is the best possible outcome for the both of you.

It is the fact that one of you betraying the other without the other betraying you back being the best possible outcome for ONE of you... That is the issue here.

It is about intentionally taking a loss to prevent the worst case scenario.

It isn't math because you cannot quantify it because it isn't a quantifyable scenario and the numbers ultimately don't matter. Numbers are just applied to it.

Logically, and comparing the outcomes, you both screw yourselves over

No logically the best case scenario for two people as a whole is for both of you to work together. That is the point of it being a "Dilemma".

[Max White]

It is about intentionally taking a loss to prevent the worst case scenario.

Nope, it is about taking a loss to avoid the worst case scenario for somebody that isn't you.
How is spending three years in prison better than two, or one year better than no time at all?