What would you do?

[Robert HM]

Nowhere does it say that "immediate" freedom is the total desire. However my conclusion would be based on the fact that there is a finite span of life.

[thetank]

The tables taken from the wikipedia page on the prisoners dilemma.

To avoid confusion I should point out that where it says co-operate that is the equivalent of staying silent in the OP and to defect is to admit the crime/land your pal in it



The quantifying of things is to illustrate a scenario whereby it may well be in the collective interest of the players to do one thing (winning 6 points in total when they both stay quiet) although they have strong incentives to do the other (admitting the crime means losing more when they lose and winning more when they win)

Take away the reward if you must, then it becomes an example of how players may have an incentive (singular) to do something that is not in their collective interests rather than incentives (plural)


The reward I think is included by whomever made your version so that then a connection to a win-lose table like the one above is more intuitive.

The "win" now is to go free (rather than a very short sentence in the original) and the "win more" can mean winning (more!) money (in the original, "win more" is to go free immediately)

[Robert HM]

I think there is a logical error in there, somewhere but my brain is to addled at 2.30am, though a good night's sleep my leave it in the same condition, I will read your post again. However I would like a simple admit or silence from you eventually.

At least it has kept you off youtube looking for "art"

[Horneris]

I'd deny, win win.

If my mate denies aswell we can go free but if he admits I can go play pool, watch TV, play cards and win lodsa packs of cigs (I don't smoke but will trade them for luxury items) and enjoy free meals on Cameron's dime.

Only downside is that I'd have to shave my hair off to look hard and ugly but for all the perks listed it would probably be worth it.

[The Camel]

One of my best friends went to prison for a long time for something he didn't do.

One of his mates did it, but my mate refused to grass him up.

The logic behind my friends behaviour totally baffled me, if his mate was a real friend, when he saw that his friend was going down for something he did, he would have confessed.

So why protect someone who isn't a true friend?

[mondatoo]

Keep shctum, then fuk him up when you get out if he don't do the same.

LOLz at BH looking hard if he shaved his head, can't see it, but maybe.

[The Camel]

FML @ wiki page about this.

Given me a headache and I'm less than 10% through it.

[thetank]

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

So what this is saying, is that your dilemma where T is greater than or equal to R. (being set free with reward greater than or equal to being set free with no reward - where we may not count the reward as being something that matters) does not change the nature of the dilemma.

ie that in choosing to confess you can only benefit yourself and by choosing to stay silent you can only benefit the other guy (while exposing yourself to the risk of S) and so the rational desicion for the individual is always to confess.

The paradox being that if both players make this rational individual decision they are worse off than if they both made the irrational individual desicion.