Originally posted by KazetNagorraWe are prisoners?
Haha, okay. The prisoner's dilemma implies that rational people will make decisions that are not in the best interests of the collective, and also do not provide the ideal outcome for the individual.
Guvamint are the warders?
Is that how it works?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo people need other people to decide things for them.
Haha, okay. The prisoner's dilemma implies that rational people will make decisions that are not in the best interests of the collective, and also do not provide the ideal outcome for the individual.
....and you see yourself as one of these extra qualified persons?
Copied from Wikipedia:
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies ("defects"š for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
---
KN: the best outcome for both prisoners combined would be if they both remain silent, the best outcome for an individual prisoner is to betray the other and walk away free. From the viewpoint of one prisoner, the other prisoner has two options: he can cooperate or defect. If he cooperates, it's best to defect, and walk away free. If he defects, it's also best to defect since the punishment is lower. So for both prisoners, the rational choice is to defect and, if they act rationally and do not know the decision of the other prisoner, both will get the 5 year prison sentence, which is not the ideal outcome.
The prisoner's dilemma can be generalized and applies to many situations in for example economics and evolutionary biology. Tax is a simple example: it's better for one individual not to pay tax and exploit other taxpayers. But if no one pays tax, everyone is worse off. Therefore the option to defect must be removed - by government.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHaha, a cut and paste, classic.
Copied from Wikipedia:
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies ("defects"š for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice recei ...[text shortened]... ax, everyone is worse off. Therefore the option to defect must be removed - by government.
What a gimp.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI thinking betrayal does give the best outcome for the collective. But it certainly does not lead to the best outcome possible for the individuals.
Haha, okay. The prisoner's dilemma implies that rational people will make decisions that are not in the best interests of the collective, and also do not provide the ideal outcome for the individual.
Can the paradox be solved by adding in the question of guilt or innocence?
Let's say that if someone is guilty, they won't talk, but if someone is innocent, they will.
So if both are guilty - neither says anything, and they both get 6 months. That seems possible.
But if one is guilty and the other not, the one who is guilty will stay silent, and the innocent one will 'defect'. So the guilty one gets 10 years, and the innocent one goes free. This is just.
The problem comes in when both are innocent and accuse each other -- they both get 5 years, which is more than if they had just shut up. But this must be kind of a rare outcome -- several innocent people accused of the same crime? Still, I suppose it has happened -- and I'd be real bitter if it was me!
Originally posted by spruce112358No, if both defect both get 5 years leading to a collective punishment of 10 years, while if both remain silent both get 6 months leading to a collective punishment of 1 year. The lowest combined punishment is achieved through both remaining silent.
I thinking betrayal does give the best outcome for the collective. But it certainly does not lead to the best outcome possible for the individuals.
Can the paradox be solved by adding in the question of guilt or innocence?
Let's say that if someone is guilty, they won't talk, but if someone is innocent, they will.
So if both are guilty - neithe ...[text shortened]... of the same crime? Still, I suppose it has happened -- and I'd be real bitter if it was me!
Whether or not they are guilty is not really relevant to the prisoner's dilemma since it's intended as a metaphor for a certain mathematical model describing decision making.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere seems to be a parallel in debates forums(though my analogy will no doubt attract streams of invective claiming straw man diversion), where a weak argument destined to die a short ignominious death gets given oxygen by the angry retort of a poster reacting to an ad hominem that was a part of the aforementioned weak argument.
Haha, okay. The prisoner's dilemma implies that rational people will make decisions that are not in the best interests of the collective, and also do not provide the ideal outcome for the individual.
Being able to wear an insult seems to work in favour of a good argument much better than trying to have the last word against a troll, though in terms of copping a lot of shpitefull abuse, its probably not the ideal outcome for the individual.
Originally posted by WajomaI know a bit about Prisoner's Dilemma problems. I think this discussion could be interesting, but it would be a lot better if you would start with a position to discuss. At this point, I don't quite see where you want to go with this.
Let's have a discussion on how this relates to freedom.
Go ahead KN
Edit: Forget it. I've read through the rest of the thread. I see some people giving honest effort, but clearly you know little about Prisoner's Dilemma problems and have a very vague idea of how it might relate to freedom. If you want to have a discussion, quit being lazy and put something forward rather than spurning what others have done.
Originally posted by teleriongive us ur opinion in the economic threads...there's a vacuumn at the moment
I know a bit about Prisoner's Dilemma problems. I think this discussion could be interesting, but it would be a lot better if you would start with a position to discuss. At this point, I don't quite see where you want to go with this.
Originally posted by uzlessThanks, but I'll pick and choose right now I'm afraid. Like I said in the last post, there are some people who will genuinely engage, but too many are lazy and just want to bicker.
give us ur opinion in the economic threads...there's a vacuumn at the moment
Which threads do you think I could help out with?