Changes

Mr. Schlafly, in class last thursday you said that in prisoner dilemma it is rare for both prisoners to get off without any jail time. But if the prisoners are rational and want to minimize their jail time then neither of them will confess. Now if both of them are thinking like this then they will each assume that the other will not confess. Therefore neither of them will confess. This is off course assuming that both are rational prisoners.  

Mr. Schlafly, in class last thursday you said that in prisoner dilemma it is rare for both prisoners to get off without any jail time. But if the prisoners are rational and want to minimize their jail time then neither of them will confess. Now if both of them are thinking like this then they will each assume that the other will not confess. Therefore neither of them will confess. This is off course assuming that both are rational prisoners.  

Daniel Nicoloso

Daniel N.

:A rational prisoner will assume his partner will rat him out, because that will reduce the snitch's jail time significantly.  The idea is that parties are self-interested, and will work toward maximum individual benefit than for the shared benefit of an organization.  --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 17:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:A rational prisoner will assume his partner will rat him out, because that will reduce the snitch's jail time significantly.  The idea is that parties are self-interested, and will work toward maximum individual benefit than for the shared benefit of an organization.  --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 17:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

But if neither of them confess then the jail time for both of them is zero years. If they both know that this is a possible outcome then they will try to reach that by assuming that the other will try to reach that. If one of them rats on the other than he still gets jail time, just not as much. If they are both looking for self-interest then they will both not confess because then nobody can be put in jail.

But if neither of them confess then the jail time for both of them is zero years. If they both know that this is a possible outcome then they will try to reach that by assuming that the other will try to reach that. If one of them rats on the other than he still gets jail time, just not as much. If they are both looking for self-interest then they will both not confess because then nobody can be put in jail.

Daniel Nicoloso

Daniel N.

:Daniel - I just reviewed the lecture that discussed the prisoner's dilemma.  Based on the potential sentences that could be distributed in the example you have been provided, I share your concern.  I found a great example of this piece of game theory on the web, which you might want to take a look at here:  [http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html]  Ultimately, the purpose of the game is to show that all actors are self-interested, and will look for an individually beneficial outcome as opposed to a mutually beneficial outcome.  Think of it as an exercise as how utilitarianism doesn't always work in practice.  Hope this helps.  --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 13:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Daniel - I just reviewed the lecture that discussed the prisoner's dilemma.  Based on the potential sentences that could be distributed in the example you have been provided, I share your concern.  I found a great example of this piece of game theory on the web, which you might want to take a look at here:  [http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html]  Ultimately, the purpose of the game is to show that all actors are self-interested, and will look for an individually beneficial outcome as opposed to a mutually beneficial outcome.  Think of it as an exercise as how utilitarianism doesn't always work in practice.  Hope this helps.  --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 13:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)