Print

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

[Flying Dice]

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.

No. Not at all. The conclusion to be reached, both logically and morally, is to not be a selfish dick.

One of the additional aspects of it is that if you screw someone over once, neither they nor anyone else will trust you to cooperate ever again. If you cooperate, you may lose out once or twice, but in the long run you will build successful relationships with others who cooperate, generating far more "good" for you than a single betrayal could ever provide. This is the basis for all of human society: it is more beneficial for everyone involved to work together, obey laws, etc. because living in a successful community is far more beneficial over the long term.

Take, for example, a pair of stone-age hunters. If they work together to bring down an animal larger than either could alone, they've each got two options: Trust the other to stay cooperative and only take their share; or take as much as they can. If they both betray the other, they leave with mutual distrust and only whatever they could grab. If one betrays the other, the betrayer gets more from that kill, but loses out on the possibility of future cooperation. If they share equally, they each get not only a greater share than they would through mutual betrayal, but also reap the increased benefits from further cooperative efforts in the future, making each of their lives easier and more rewarding.

Choosing to betray in the Prisoner's Dilemma is incredibly shortsighted. Cooperation spawns further cooperation and the benefits thereof, for however long such interactions continue. Betrayal at best provides a single short-term increase in benefit but destroys all chance of future cooperation.

[Neonivek]

One of the additional aspects of it is that if you screw someone over once, neither they nor anyone else will trust you to cooperate ever again. If you cooperate, you may lose out once or twice, but in the long run you will build successful relationships with others who cooperate, generating far more "good" for you than a single betrayal could ever provide. This is the basis for all of human society: it is more beneficial for everyone involved to work together, obey laws, etc. because living in a successful community is far more beneficial over the long term

Yeah it is kinda the thing about the Prisoner's dilemma. Though people have projected that it means that ultimately since the answer is unknowable that you should screw the other person over...

The fact of the matter is the pair of prisoners who did work together are actually a lot stronger then any other outcome.

Yet that is why it is considered the "Best outcome" just not the best for a single individual.

Choosing to betray in the Prisoner's Dilemma is incredibly shortsighted. Cooperation spawns further cooperation and the benefits thereof, for however long such interactions continue. Betrayal at best provides a single short-term increase in benefit but destroys all chance of future cooperation

Well that is why people suggest it being an "Open" Betrayal.

[misko27]

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.

No. Not at all. The conclusion to be reached, both logically and morally, is to not be a selfish dick.

One of the additional aspects of it is that if you screw someone over once, neither they nor anyone else will trust you to cooperate ever again. If you cooperate, you may lose out once or twice, but in the long run you will build successful relationships with others who cooperate, generating far more "good" for you than a single betrayal could ever provide. This is the basis for all of human society: it is more beneficial for everyone involved to work together, obey laws, etc. because living in a successful community is far more beneficial over the long term.

Take, for example, a pair of stone-age hunters. If they work together to bring down an animal larger than either could alone, they've each got two options: Trust the other to stay cooperative and only take their share; or take as much as they can. If they both betray the other, they leave with mutual distrust and only whatever they could grab. If one betrays the other, the betrayer gets more from that kill, but loses out on the possibility of future cooperation. If they share equally, they each get not only a greater share than they would through mutual betrayal, but also reap the increased benefits from further cooperative efforts in the future, making each of their lives easier and more rewarding.

Choosing to betray in the Prisoner's Dilemma is incredibly shortsighted. Cooperation spawns further cooperation and the benefits thereof, for however long such interactions continue. Betrayal at best provides a single short-term increase in benefit but destroys all chance of future cooperation.

Entirely different Dillema there Dice. The Hare theorom. Do you abandon and chase the rabbitt, or do you help them out and get a deer? The problem being, if enough chicken out, it fails, and they chiken outers prove theselves right. It's how markets collapse.
 

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".

NO NO NO NO NO. You just don't get it. You can't communicate! You aren't taking a loss, because you cannot EFFECT their actions. If you cooperate, he can easily fuck you over. And if you defect too, it doesn't change what he did. Even if he cooperates, you always do better in terms sof numbers then if you defected. Would we like to cooperate? Sure! But we can't know the other guy won't fuck us other, plus HE might feel the same way and fuck us other just to protect himself. It's self-perpetuating.
 

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?

Don't, know.
 
Anyway,onto a more entertaining Game teory, the DOLLAR AUCTION! Hello folks, Top of the morning to you top of the day, it's time, to play. For bid we have ONE, Dollar. This seems stupid you say. "What's to keep me from betting 1 penny and convincing eveyone else to split it?" Nothing, except that guy other there, who looks like he'd want it all to himself for 2 pennies. And so on. "But wait, it will eventually be .99, and then you just owe a penny" It would be if you listened to thre rules dear boy. Because, while the top bidder gives me his bid in exchange for a dollar, the second-highest bidder gives it to me and gets NOTHING. That's right folks. So mister .98 over there might want to not pay that, and go to a dollar. And what about you? It's a choice between paying 1 cent and payign 99. easy right?
 
*five minutes later*
 
Thanks for your money folks. All $10 of it.
 
 

[PanH]

 
The prisoner's dilemma (based on game's theory, which is mathematical) is not about the best solution for you.
It's about how, if done once, rational people will betray the other.
But, if repeated a certain number of times, on the other hand, it will see appear more and more cooperation.
 
And the result are exactly the same, if you can communicate or not.

[Korbac]

Choosing to betray in the Prisoner's Dilemma is incredibly shortsighted. Cooperation spawns further cooperation and the benefits thereof, for however long such interactions continue. Betrayal at best provides a single short-term increase in benefit but destroys all chance of future cooperation

Definitely, although if this were a 'real' situation (in prison / court) you would only get one chance, so that makes betrayal more likely.

This means the validity of the experiment is sometimes taken out of context.

[Neonivek]

NO NO NO NO NO. You just don't get it. You can't communicate! You aren't taking a loss, because you cannot EFFECT their actions. If you cooperate, he can easily fuck you over. And if you defect too, it doesn't change what he did. Even if he cooperates, you always do better in terms sof numbers then if you defected. Would we like to cooperate? Sure! But we can't know the other guy won't fuck us other, plus HE might feel the same way and fuck us other just to protect himself. It's self-perpetuating.

I know that you cannot communicate but believe it or not you don't have to be able to do so in order to cooperate. Still as always the best possible outcome for you both is if you both co-operated and that is the important aspect you don't seem to catch onto it.

The other important aspect however is that if you chose to defect however you avoid the WORST case scenario for yourself.

It's about how, if done once, rational people will betray the other

That is somehow dumb to me. People had to create a formula and scenario and make books about "Why betraying people is beneficial?"

[misko27]

A better example of ration people makign rational descisions leading to a irrational outcome is the Dollar auction, what I just described. Best descision is to not play of course, but once your in...

[Max White]

Anyway,onto a more entertaining Game teory, the DOLLAR AUCTION! Hello folks, Top of the morning to you top of the day, it's time, to play. For bid we have ONE, Dollar. This seems stupid you say. "What's to keep me from betting 1 penny and convincing eveyone else to split it?" Nothing, except that guy other there, who looks like he'd want it all to himself for 2 pennies. And so on. "But wait, it will eventually be .99, and then you just owe a penny" It would be if you listened to thre rules dear boy. Because, while the top bidder gives me his bid in exchange for a dollar, the second-highest bidder gives it to me and gets NOTHING. That's right folks. So mister .98 over there might want to not pay that, and go to a dollar. And what about you? It's a choice between paying 1 cent and payign 99. easy right?
 
*five minutes later*
 
Thanks for your money folks. All $10 of it.

The best bit is that when it gets to .99 cents, and somebody doesn't want to pay their 90 cents bid, so they bid a dollar. The other guy then thinks that the 2 cents loss from bidding $1.01 is better than the 99 cent loss, thus this continues and people bid higher and higher just to try and minimize their loss.

[PanH]

It's about how, if done once, rational people will betray the other

That is somehow dumb to me. People had to create a formula and scenario and make books about "Why betraying people is beneficial?"

The reasoning is the following :
 
If he talks, there's two possibilities : I talk too, and we take 5 years each. Or I shut up, and I take 10 years. The most logical option is to talk too.
 
If he doesn't talk : I talk, I'm free. I don't talk, I take 6 months. The most logical option is to talk.
 
(and this is appliable only if the dilemma happens once)
 

[Korbac]

Anyway,onto a more entertaining Game teory, the DOLLAR AUCTION! Hello folks, Top of the morning to you top of the day, it's time, to play. For bid we have ONE, Dollar. This seems stupid you say. "What's to keep me from betting 1 penny and convincing eveyone else to split it?" Nothing, except that guy other there, who looks like he'd want it all to himself for 2 pennies. And so on. "But wait, it will eventually be .99, and then you just owe a penny" It would be if you listened to thre rules dear boy. Because, while the top bidder gives me his bid in exchange for a dollar, the second-highest bidder gives it to me and gets NOTHING. That's right folks. So mister .98 over there might want to not pay that, and go to a dollar. And what about you? It's a choice between paying 1 cent and payign 99. easy right?
 
*five minutes later*
 
Thanks for your money folks. All $10 of it.

The best bit is that when it gets to .99 cents, and somebody doesn't want to pay their 90 cents bid, so they bid a dollar. The other guy then thinks that the 2 cents loss from bidding $1.01 is better than the 99 cent loss, thus this continues and people bid higher and higher just to try and minimize their loss.

Embarrassingly, this was how I thought auctions actually worked until I was about 16. 

[misko27]

The funniest part is the RAND corporation proved it by doing "experiments" to this effect in various places. Often it would get up to 5 or 6 dollars a bid before someone gave up.
 
Must try this sometime.

[Max White]

Embarrassingly, this was how I thought auctions actually worked until I was about 16. 

There are auctions like this in real life. Most often for charity. The best involves a celebrity signing a ten dollar note to bid for.

[Scelly9]

The funniest part is the RAND corporation proved it by doing "experiments" to this effect in various places. Often it would get up to 5 or 6 dollars a bid before someone gave up.
 
Must try this sometime.

Not only proving psychological oddities of the human mind, but making a profit, as well!

[Max White]

I was in one once, going for $20 with minimum $1 increase.
First thing I did was carefully explain to everybody how these things work and why if two people bid it will always go badly for them both. Then I offered to donate a single dollar for the bid, we wait it out, and share the twenty.

Needless to say, I walked away with the twenty, and they felt incredibly ripped off. Truth be told I most likely saved them from having to actually pay money...

[Neonivek]

Every once in a while one question comes back to me...

What DID Merryweather want to bestow onto Princess Aurora before she had to change it?