3 ms·

Of course that's not a real prisoners dilemma, because the payouts are wrong. In the real prisoners dilemma Defect-Defect gives you a better payout than Coopera

Of course that's not a real prisoners dilemma, because the payouts are wrong. In the real prisoners dilemma Defect-Defect gives you a better payout than Cooperate-Defect. So when your opponent pre-commits to defect, you must defect.

yonran 15y ago
I believe you meant Defect-Cooperate gives the defector a better payout than Cooperate-Cooperate. At any rate, I’m not sure that it makes a difference in this video.
- jgeralnik 15y ago
  No, he means Defect-Cooperate should give the person who lost less than he would have gotten from Defect-Defect. For example, in the Prisoner's Dilemma you might get 0 years of jail time if only you defect, 1 year if you both cooperate, 3 years if you both defect, and 10 years if only the other person defects. Then, knowing that the other person will defect it is still in your best interest to defect as well. In this challenge, if you know that the other person will defect you automatically get $0, whether you defect or not. In that case there is no particular reason for you to defect (except out of spite) and you are better off with the hopes that your opponent will keep his promise than with nothing.
robertskmiles 15y ago
The biggest reason it's not a real prisoner's dilemma is because the prisoners can communicate. Key to the standard prisoner's dilemma is that there is no way for the prisoners to talk to one another. Like the post says, it's a variant.
- dbecker 15y ago
  Inability to communicate is not required in the classical prisoners dilemma. It's inability to credibly commit. The distinction is illustrated with the common application of the prisoner's dilemma to cartels. Cartel members can tell each other they will restrict production, but they do not observe each other's factories. So even if they agree ahead of time to reduce production, that is cheap talk... and they can produce whatever they want. It's quite similar to this game show, though as a previous commenter pointed out, the relative payoffs are different.
  - robertskmiles 15y ago
    I suppose this will have been discussed in other comments, but it seems to me the ability to credibly commit here isn't bad. I'm not sure if verbal contracts are legally binding in the UK, but they certainly have a lot of witnesses, and the social consequences for breaking a very public verbal contract can be substantial.

yonran 15y ago

I believe you meant Defect-Cooperate gives the defector a better payout than Cooperate-Cooperate. At any rate, I’m not sure that it makes a difference in this video.

jgeralnik 15y ago
No, he means Defect-Cooperate should give the person who lost less than he would have gotten from Defect-Defect. For example, in the Prisoner's Dilemma you might get 0 years of jail time if only you defect, 1 year if you both cooperate, 3 years if you both defect, and 10 years if only the other person defects. Then, knowing that the other person will defect it is still in your best interest to defect as well. In this challenge, if you know that the other person will defect you automatically get $0, whether you defect or not. In that case there is no particular reason for you to defect (except out of spite) and you are better off with the hopes that your opponent will keep his promise than with nothing.

robertskmiles 15y ago

The biggest reason it's not a real prisoner's dilemma is because the prisoners can communicate. Key to the standard prisoner's dilemma is that there is no way for the prisoners to talk to one another. Like the post says, it's a variant.

dbecker 15y ago
Inability to communicate is not required in the classical prisoners dilemma. It's inability to credibly commit. The distinction is illustrated with the common application of the prisoner's dilemma to cartels. Cartel members can tell each other they will restrict production, but they do not observe each other's factories. So even if they agree ahead of time to reduce production, that is cheap talk... and they can produce whatever they want. It's quite similar to this game show, though as a previous commenter pointed out, the relative payoffs are different.
- robertskmiles 15y ago
  I suppose this will have been discussed in other comments, but it seems to me the ability to credibly commit here isn't bad. I'm not sure if verbal contracts are legally binding in the UK, but they certainly have a lot of witnesses, and the social consequences for breaking a very public verbal contract can be substantial.