Anyone up for Prisoner's Dilemma?

Just by talking I’m getting my time spent in jail reduced. It would be stupid not to talk.

Unless there are concerns about what the other person could do to my family. That changes everything.

@theichibun Very nice point, but what if you knew what you were saying was a fallacy? Remember that you are given absolute freedom in this. The cops have no way of knowing which one of you is right or wrong, you are the defendent and the prosecutor. Will you speak out even if the other person is innocent? (This isn’t part of the dilemma, but your point just got me thinking).

I’d remain quiet.

remember what neo did when he was interrogated by agents?

Assuming I’m innocent, tell the truth. It is the right thing to do and give the best hopes of release or a shorter sentence. Assuming I’m guilty, blame the other party. If my morals are low enough to commit the crime, then they are also probably low enough to try to let someone else serve my time.

The real issue in the prisoner’s dilemma for me is the ability of the investigators to understand the motives in place and then make the correct decision about which person is truly guilty.

don’t say a word.

@juwhite1: The point of the game is that nothing truly matters beyond what you say. It is a simultaneous game (both players move at the same time) with full information (you know what the payoffs are for every possible move). There is a dominant strategy (talking is always the “better” outcome for you—if they talk, you should talk and if they don’t talk, you should talk), but this leads to a non-optimal equilibrium (you both talk and get 5 years in jail whereas you could have kept your mouths shut and only done six months).

No one is innocent in the game.

To answer: It would depend on who the other person is. If it was, say, my fiance, I would not talk. If it was some dude I found through a “help wanted, let’s commit crimes together” ad on Craigslist, you can bet I’d be talking. This, of course, assumes it is a one-time game. If there are to be several rounds, it is, of course, in my best interest (our best interest) to not screw each other over until the end—biggest payoff and all that. Of course, you can always dial that back to the top by doing the whole “well, I’ll screw you before you have a chance to screw me” thing, but I like to think I’m working with someone who has their eye on the prize until the last round.

@EmpressPixie – Yes – I’m quite familiar with the game theory application of the prisoner’s dilemma. See Nash Equilibrium for the game theory that was developed in response to this to analyze and resolve the dilemma (Nash got the Nobel prize for his response to the prisoner’s dilemma, so I doubt any of us will do any better). That said, I’m back to the actual dilemma, of how the investigators interpret their actions… that hasn’t already been addressed by game theorists, yet (at least to my knowledge).

@juwhite1: Because it isn’t relevant to the game. Once you add that in it becomes a different game. Also, generally the reason prisoner’s dilemma is interesting is that there is a clear Nash equilibrium and it’s not the globally optimal result.

So my point is that you are extending the game beyond its actual terms to create a new game.

Nash Equilibrium was developed to bring the best response to light in the prisoner’s dilemma (and other similar dilemmas where both parties know the options of the others, but don’t know what choices they’ll make). It does not necessarily yield a pareto optimal result, but then, that is how real life works. The statement that the reason the prisoner’s dilemmas is interesting because their is a clear Nash equilibrium and it’s not the globally optimal result doesn’t make sense to me. Nash equilibrium was created in response to the prisoner’s dilemma… It wasn’t that the prisoner’s dilemma was created to exploit some sort of hole in Nash equilibrium.
You are correct that my focus on the analysis of their actions gives insight into the truth behind the prisoner’s dilemma is changing the game to create a new one. That’s just because the prisoner’s dilemma has already been resolved by Nash and I’d prefer to move onto the next question for my own intellectual curiosity. I’ll certainly drop that and focus on the question at hand. A close study of Nash Equilibrium will bring you to the resolution of the prisoner’s dilemma in terms of the best choice for the prisoners to make. That’s why he won the Nobel for it… no one else could state with mathematical certainty what the best solution would be before Nash’s work.

@juwhite1: The reason it is interesting is thus: there is a dominant strategy that leads to a Nash equilibrium. This strategy does not leave you with the best overall outcome. The game is exceedingly simple to explain to people. Thus, you have an interesting situation to present to others to see how they react. I know, I know that if all players are rational, the best response is to screw over my partner. And yet, if I trust my partner, I will depend on that “irrational” trust to save both of us. This says something about me as a person. That’s what makes it interesting. Similarly, your response says something about you as a person.

Having an “answer” doesn’t necessarily make something less interesting.

If I’m going to have to do this more than once, I stay quiet.
If I’m doing this once, I prosecute.

If I have to do this more than once and decide to screw over the other prisoner, then that prisoner is never going to want to work with me again.
If I have to do this only once, then I’d say screw him and try to do what’s best for me.

I have discussed this with all the people I would trust enough to remain silent for.

We discussed this in my philosophy class. It is wise to talk because if you disregard what the other person does. in each case your sentence is reduced. By remaining silent you are relying on the other person remaining silent which is not smart

Ah, yes, the classic “Fuck you, buddy!” problem :)

I would have to say that it really depends on who the other person is, but given the small number of people I trust, I would probably prosecute.