Prisoner’s dilemma: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
An exercise in calculating economic outcomes by means of {{tag|metaphor}}, the prisoners dilemma was developed at the RAND corporation in the 1950s by those splendid brainboxes  as a way of predicting individuals’ behaviour in situations requiring [[I believe|trust]] among strangers - for very good example, when unacquainted participants buy or sell in an unregulated market. This field developed into [[game theory]].
An exercise in calculating economic outcomes by means of {{tag|metaphor}}, the prisoners dilemma was developed at the RAND corporation in the 1950s by those splendid brainboxes  as a way of predicting individuals’ behaviour in situations requiring [[I believe|trust]] among strangers - for very good example, when unacquainted participants buy or sell in an unregulated market. This field developed into [[game theory]].


===The original dilemma===
{{prisonersdilemmatable}}
{{prisonersdilemmatable}}
===The original dilemma===
Two people are  charged with a conspiracy<ref>Whether or not they are guilty is beside the point. If it helps you empathise with their predicament, assume they’re innocent</ref>.  Each is held separately. They cannot communicate. There  is enough evidence to convict both on a lesser charge, but not the main charge. Each prisoner is separately offered the same plea bargain. The offer is:
Two people are  charged with a conspiracy<ref>Whether or not they are guilty is beside the point. If it helps you empathise with their predicament, assume they’re innocent</ref>.  Each is held separately. They cannot communicate. There  is enough evidence to convict both on a lesser charge, but not the main charge. Each prisoner is separately offered the same plea bargain. The offer is:
*If A informs B but B refuses to inform on A:
*If A informs B but B refuses to inform on A:
Line 15: Line 14:
**B will get 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge).
**B will get 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge).


===The [[eBayer’s dilemma]]===
{{EBayer’s dilemma}}
{{EBayer’s dilemma}}
===The [[eBayer’s dilemma]]===
The consequence is easier to see in more familiar context.  Strangers consider a settling a transaction they have agreed on eBay to purchase a set of complete boxeed set of the final season of ''Some Mothers Do ’Ave ’Em'' on VHS, for £100. The seller must pay and the buyer must post the videos simultaneously. Assume the Seller would have sold the videos at any price over £50 (so the transaction represents a £50 profit for her), and privately, the buyer would have been prepared to pay £150, (the transaction therefore representing a £50 profit for him).  
The consequence is easier to see in more familiar context.  Strangers consider a settling a transaction they have agreed on eBay to purchase a set of complete boxeed set of the final season of ''Some Mothers Do ’Ave ’Em'' on VHS, for £100. The seller must pay and the buyer must post the videos simultaneously. Assume the Seller would have sold the videos at any price over £50 (so the transaction represents a £50 profit for her), and privately, the buyer would have been prepared to pay £150, (the transaction therefore representing a £50 profit for him).