Anyone heard of the "Prisoner's Dilema" ?
Here is a good write up:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
Here is my synopsis:
Basically There are two prisoners, and they are given a choice;
Quote:
|
You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time.
|
Quote:
|
Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges.
|
Quote:
|
The "dilemma" faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent.
|
The theoretical application of this "Dilema" represents all sorts of daily situations. Do you cooperate or do you betray? Should the two prisoners cooperate, and both remain silent, and therefore both gain light sentences or should they risk betraying the other to get off scot-free?
It may seem difficult to see the practicle application of this, but it happens to you everyday. How many time have you seen this? 10 people out for a meal all decide before hand to split the bill 10 ways. Do you all "cooperate" or does one of you "betray" the others and order themself an extra drink safe in the knowledge that the cost will be split between all 10?
How often do you make the coffee in the office? How often does everyone else make it? Is there someone that tries to get away with making it less often?
On anight out do all of your friends buy the same number of rounds?
In the animal world, do you let your "friend" groom your for ticks and then "betray" by not returning the favour or do you cooperate and expend valuable time for the benefit of another?
Now the interesting thing is this...
It turns out that there is a way to "play" this "game", and always win - its commonly called "Tit for Tat".
Quote:
|
A group whose members pursue rational self-interest may all end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to rational self-interest.
|
"Tit for Tat" works like this; start off by cooperating, and then mirror your oponents every move.
If your "oponent/ friend" cooperates from the start then you both win, continue to coperate, hopefully your oponent will also do this and you will continue to cooperate without problem. (You both make coffee the same amount of time.) Cooperation is equally rewarding for both parties.
However if they betray you then you need to "punish" them, so you betray them once also. However don't hold a grudge, forgive and return to cooperating if they do. (If they don't make coffee one day, you don't make for them the next.) This way "betrayal" becomes an unrewarding strategy, betrayal just means that you end up with less.
| Top Tip: |
Cooperation means that everyone wins, always set out to cooperate and avoid the temptation to betray, you may get away with it once or twice, but ultimately it is an unrewarding strategy.
If you are "betrayed", then you need to "punish" quickly and in equal proportion to the betrayal. However, always return to Cooperation, don't bear a grudge becasue at the end of the day you will both loose.
|
NOTE: "Prisoner's Dilema" was developed as a study in the 1950's as a investigation into "
Game Theory" basically
a method of analysing strategic behaviour. Investigations were carried out witht he aid of the newly invented electronic "Computer". It also played a role in modeling global nuclear strategy during the cold war! I think unfortunately even the "sure win" strategy of "Tit for Tat" would have lost that battle had someone hit the red button!