4 ms·

Sounds a little bit like the prisoner's dilemma...

by o1iver 15y ago

briggsbio 15y ago
Thanks for the insight Captain Obvious. Did you forget to eat your Wheaties this morning?
- younata 15y ago
  "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation." [1] There are many places for insulting others, HN is not one of those places. [1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- briggsbio 15y ago
  Sincere apologies. Should revisit those guidelines before posting when I haven't had my own Wheaties.
gwern 15y ago
1. It's pretty much isomorphic, yes 2. The title gestures to that (notice that programmer and prisoner both have 3 syllables, even) 3. The article links straight to the SEP article on the prisoner's dilemma
Mz 15y ago
A little, except in the prisoner's dilemma, if they both agree and don't blame each other, you get the best outcome. That isn't really the case here. And if they both betray each other, they are both screwed.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Check your definition again. In Game Theory, that's a different game, where cooperating outweighs suckering the other guy. That's called a "Stag Hunt:" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/#StaHunPD http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/#StaHunPD It could be that in some organizations, the rewards are such that a Stag Hunt is a better model.
  - Mz 15y ago
    No, I mean best outcome for all parties -- ie win-win -- and the story sounds to me like there is no actual good outcome for this tale. I am well aware that in prisoner's dilemma if one person betrays/blames and the other does not, that's when one party gets over. Sorry for being unclear.
    - jerf 15y ago
      No, you're still missing it. In Prisoner's Dilemma, if they both cooperate they still get a bad outcome. It is globally the least bad, but individually worse for each of them than defecting if the other cooperates. Look at the payoff matrix: [1] If mutual cooperation was the best outcome, there would be no dilemma. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_classic_prisoner.27s_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Strategy_f...
      - Mz 15y ago
        In that matrix, total time served if they remain loyal is 2 months (one month for each of them). If one of them betrays the other, total time served is 1 year (for one of them while the other goes free). If they both betray, total time served is 6 months (3 for each of them). So it seems to me that if they both remain silent, that is the best aggregate outcome. However, it isn't always the case that someone will automatically be screwed no matter what. Sometimes if they both remain loyal, they can't be charged with anything. The reason there is temptation in a case like that is because if the other guy breaks, then you are screwed, not because loyalty isn't the overall best outcome but because individual outcomes vary with each possible set of choices in the matrix and there is risk in not knowing what the other person will do. Maybe you don't care about "overall best outcome". Maybe you only care what happens to you, in which case I assume you would betray me. But in the face of rules that are going to screw the people no matter what, closing ranks causes the least overall harm -- assuming you have sufficient trust to pull that off in the absence of communication. (EDIT: For example, if you are both members of an organized crime syndicate or a resistance movement, the organization suffers the least overall loss/cost if it gives very strict orders that no one talks -- assuming the two people are of equal value to the organization. Even if you are not part of a larger organization, betrayal costs not only time served but trust of the person you betrayed. Depending upon the situation, one month in jail may be less of a loss than losing this person's trust.)

Sounds a little bit like the prisoner's dilemma...

by o1iver 15y ago

Sounds a little bit like the prisoner's dilemma...

briggsbio 15y ago

Thanks for the insight Captain Obvious. Did you forget to eat your Wheaties this morning?

younata 15y ago
"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation." [1] There are many places for insulting others, HN is not one of those places. [1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
briggsbio 15y ago
Sincere apologies. Should revisit those guidelines before posting when I haven't had my own Wheaties.

gwern 15y ago

1. It's pretty much isomorphic, yes 2. The title gestures to that (notice that programmer and prisoner both have 3 syllables, even) 3. The article links straight to the SEP article on the prisoner's dilemma

Mz 15y ago

A little, except in the prisoner's dilemma, if they both agree and don't blame each other, you get the best outcome. That isn't really the case here. And if they both betray each other, they are both screwed.

raganwald 15y ago
Check your definition again. In Game Theory, that's a different game, where cooperating outweighs suckering the other guy. That's called a "Stag Hunt:" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/#StaHunPD http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/#StaHunPD It could be that in some organizations, the rewards are such that a Stag Hunt is a better model.
- Mz 15y ago
  No, I mean best outcome for all parties -- ie win-win -- and the story sounds to me like there is no actual good outcome for this tale. I am well aware that in prisoner's dilemma if one person betrays/blames and the other does not, that's when one party gets over. Sorry for being unclear.
  - jerf 15y ago
    No, you're still missing it. In Prisoner's Dilemma, if they both cooperate they still get a bad outcome. It is globally the least bad, but individually worse for each of them than defecting if the other cooperates. Look at the payoff matrix: [1] If mutual cooperation was the best outcome, there would be no dilemma. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_classic_prisoner.27s_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Strategy_f...
    - Mz 15y ago
      In that matrix, total time served if they remain loyal is 2 months (one month for each of them). If one of them betrays the other, total time served is 1 year (for one of them while the other goes free). If they both betray, total time served is 6 months (3 for each of them). So it seems to me that if they both remain silent, that is the best aggregate outcome. However, it isn't always the case that someone will automatically be screwed no matter what. Sometimes if they both remain loyal, they can't be charged with anything. The reason there is temptation in a case like that is because if the other guy breaks, then you are screwed, not because loyalty isn't the overall best outcome but because individual outcomes vary with each possible set of choices in the matrix and there is risk in not knowing what the other person will do. Maybe you don't care about "overall best outcome". Maybe you only care what happens to you, in which case I assume you would betray me. But in the face of rules that are going to screw the people no matter what, closing ranks causes the least overall harm -- assuming you have sufficient trust to pull that off in the absence of communication. (EDIT: For example, if you are both members of an organized crime syndicate or a resistance movement, the organization suffers the least overall loss/cost if it gives very strict orders that no one talks -- assuming the two people are of equal value to the organization. Even if you are not part of a larger organization, betrayal costs not only time served but trust of the person you betrayed. Depending upon the situation, one month in jail may be less of a loss than losing this person's trust.)