What would you do?

[Robert HM]

It is that dilemma, though there is no penalty for both denying the offence. I am using Warburton's scenario and he thinks your wrong.
How do you know the other is going to deny the offence?

Why wouldn't you deny it when you know you'll both get away with it if you both deny?

Denying results in either: going free or jail for long time
Admitting results in either jail for long time or jail for short time

Therefore you should deny.

Misread

Ah yes sorry. The admit/deny terminology confused me lol.

Admit to it. You either go free or get a short jail term. Denying results in either going free or a long jail term.

That's obv the game theory answer and doesn't take into account real life stuff such as not grassing on your mates etc.

Does that effect your answer?

Originally, i.e. not by me, it was asked as a purely philosophical question but interesting how game theory can creep in.

[Cf]

I hope I read and got it right that time. I shouldn't reply to math topics whilst i'm half asleep lol

[Cf]

It is that dilemma, though there is no penalty for both denying the offence. I am using Warburton's scenario and he thinks your wrong.
How do you know the other is going to deny the offence?

Why wouldn't you deny it when you know you'll both get away with it if you both deny?

Denying results in either: going free or jail for long time
Admitting results in either jail for long time or jail for short time

Therefore you should deny.

Misread

Ah yes sorry. The admit/deny terminology confused me lol.

Admit to it. You either go free or get a short jail term. Denying results in either going free or a long jail term.

That's obv the game theory answer and doesn't take into account real life stuff such as not grassing on your mates etc.

Does that effect your answer?

Originally, i.e. not by me, it was asked as a purely philosophical question but interesting how game theory can creep in.

Well yeah in real life you might trust your friend to do the right thing.

Golden Balls is perhaps a simpler to understand example. If I made the final of that against someone I consider a friend I would happily split the money even though strategically it is the wrong choice. Against anyone else i'd steal.

(These cases all assume a single playing of the game of course. Repeated plays make split/deny the correct choice)

[thetank]

This is the prisoner's dilemma but you have it slightly wrong. In your scenario you obv just deny it and you both go free.

Both denying should carry a penalty. In which case you should admit to it.

In your prisoner's dilemma when both parties keep quiet and serve a small sentence it is still considered to be a "win". (With the getting no sentence and the other guy going down for a long stretch being "win more")

In Robert's dilemma when both parties keep quiet and serve no sentence it is also a "win."
The theory should be no different as when the other guy goes down for a long stretch in Robert's dilemma and you go free, it is still a "win more" as a reward is mentioned.

[Robert HM]

I said DOND earlier, thanks for not flaming me peeps, I meant Jaspers awful output GB.

[Cf]

Actually i've changed my mind again.

You'd deny.

The fact that you both go free for denying is key. Unless you're trying to get each other sent down there's no reason to admit to it as you both know that denying results in going free.

The only way to "win" at the game should be from admitting/defecting/stealing. That isn't the case in your scenario.

[Robert HM]

Actually i've changed my mind again.

You'd deny.

The fact that you both go free for denying is key. Unless you're trying to get each other sent down there's no reason to admit to it as you both know that denying results in going free.

The only way to "win" at the game should be from admitting/defecting/stealing. That isn't the case in your scenario.

How much do you trust your mate?
Does he trust you?

[Girgy85]

Id grass him up and walk free!

[thetank]

In real life you'd keep quiet because it's real life. Pride, self respect and all that.

Even from a completely selfish point of view the game theory goes out the window because there is massive potential for untold negative consequences in the "win more" scenarios. (ie, folk don't like people who grass)

[Robert HM]

In real life you'd keep quiet because it's real life. Pride, self respect and all that.

Even from a completely selfish point of view the game theory goes out the window because there is massive potential for untold negative consequences in the "win more" scenarios. (ie, folk don't like people who grass)

"no other issues to be considered other than desire for freedom"

I would do a proper forum quote but there is a horrible typo there.

[thetank]

In real life you'd keep quiet because it's real life. Pride, self respect and all that.

Even from a completely selfish point of view the game theory goes out the window because there is massive potential for untold negative consequences in the "win more" scenarios. (ie, folk don't like people who grass)

"no other issues to be considered other than desire for freedom"

I would do a proper forum quote but there is a horrible typo there.

Can you clear something up then with regard to "being rewarded for your co-operation and set free"

Is the reward being set free, or are we rewarded in some other manner as well as being set free.

If the latter, does "no other issues to be considered other than desire for freedom" mean that we should discount this reward?

[Robert HM]

There will be an unquantified reward as well as being set free.

If freedom is my total desire, I would be tempted to discount the reward, wouldn't you?

[thetank]

There will be an unquantified reward as well as being set free.

If freedom is my total desire, I would be tempted to discount the reward, wouldn't you?

If I'm told that freedom is my only desire (as I believe is the case here) then I would have no choice but to discount the reward from the decision making process would I not?

[Robert HM]

There will be an unquantified reward as well as being set free.

If freedom is my total desire, I would be tempted to discount the reward, wouldn't you?

If I'm told that freedom is my only desire (as I believe is the case here) then I would have no choice but to discount the reward from the decision making process would I not?

The original dilema included the reward, me thinks it is a red herring or included to make a point.

[thetank]

Is immediate freedom the total desire? In which case the length of sentence would also be irrelevant.

This would bring about a scenario where admitting you and the other guy did it would guarantee the other guy loses his freedom, and your freedom is dependant on his answer.

Staying silent would guarantee the other guy wins his freedom, our freedom still being dependant on his answer.

While staying silent looks better, if we're strictly only concerned with our immediate freedom then there's no answer better than the other.




If we are considering the length of sentence, then the lose scenario from staying silent is worse than the lose scenario from admitting the crime. We should therefore admit the crime/betray our pal

Losing less and (if we're counting the reward) winning more is pushing us from one direction and pulling us from another towards admit the crime/betray our pal.
Take away the push and you still have the pull.