3 ms·
In the prisoners' dilemma, there is a mutual adversary plotting to turn them against one another. In the prisoners' there is no communication possible. Those ar
by drewcoo 4y ago
In the prisoners' dilemma, there is a mutual adversary plotting to turn them against one another. In the prisoners' there is no communication possible. Those are actually the key elements of the puzzle!
Employer/employee relationships one would hope that there is open communication and that there's not some agent trying to pit them against each other.
I think the analysis breaks down right where it starts for work.
I also think the author should seek counseling if they see work that way. That's just a very unhealthy outlook.
- harimau777 4y agoFrom what I've seen, the problem is that if an employee communicates their concerns to their boss, then their boss can use that communication against them. E.g. by punishing them for "not being a team player". In practice, a situation where no communication is possible and a situation where it isn't safe to communicate are very similar.
- steveBK123 4y agoRight, and ironically the bosses/orgs I've been in that talk about "psychological safety" had the most psycho managers.
- epicureanideal 4y agoWhy are these people in their positions? Why are better managed companies not replacing them?
- steveBK123 4y agoBecause tech mostly promotes perceived "high performing" ICs to management. Which has no correlation with being a good manager. And then those people move up and promote more people like them. I've tried it on for size a few times, don't love it, don't think I'm great at it, but fortunately moved into areas that can pay ICs well. Otherwise most ICs eventually fall into the trap of having to pretend to want to be a manger in order to keep moving up in the pay scale. Given the choice, I'll stay out of management, but if not doing it meant capping out on pay.. then sure, I'd have to do it again.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ChadNauseam 4y agoI don’t think so. The prisoner’s dilemma is just a payoff matrix. Adding communication doesn’t change it as long as each player can’t see the other’s choice before making their own. And whether the payoff matrix arises because of a mutual adversary or some other way doesn’t seem like it should make a difference to me. Make it an iterated prisoner’s dilemma, or add some other way for players to punish each other after seeing their choice, and that does change the game.
- Antoniocl 4y agoThe relationship between a boss and an employee is so far removed from a classical single-round prisoner's dilemma that I don't think you'll draw reliably accurate conclusions from it. As it sounds like you know, constraints like iteration change the game significantly, as would making it a game with many actors and reputational effects. All models are wrong, some models are useful, and in this case it seems more wrong than useful. Edit: thought you were OP, whoops
- Kranar 4y ago>Adding communication doesn’t change it as long as each player can’t see the other’s choice before making their own. Saying that communication doesn't change the prisoner's dilemma so long as each player can't communicate is a contradiction. The only difference is you used the word "see" instead of the word "communicate", but "see"ing is a form of communication.
- SailingSperm 4y agoThey're saying there's a distinction of being able to communicate freely (and possibly lie) while still not showing your final action to defect or cooperate. Which yes, leaves the prisoners dilemma much the same as the 0 forms of comms version.
- Kranar 4y ago>They're saying there's a distinction But OP is saying there is no distinction.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]