The prisoner’s dilemma is a game theory concept used to examine why people act the way they do. It involves two prisoners who must decide whether to remain silent or betray the other. The risk of remaining silent is perceived to be greater, leading to the conclusion that defection is the best response. The dilemma is used to show how situations can escalate through seemingly rational options, leading to a stalemate where everyone loses.
The prisoner’s dilemma is a game theory concept that is used to illustrate a variety of situations. The concept is also sometimes used in fields such as psychology and philosophy when people want to examine why people act the way they do. Credit for developing the prisoner’s dilemma is generally given to a pair of RAND researchers, Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher, who worked in the 1950s. Albert W. Tucker refined the idea and dubbed the concept the “prisoner’s dilemma.”
Classically, the prisoner’s dilemma is presented as a situation involving two prisoners, A and B, who are taken into custody for a crime. The police are aware that the evidence is insufficient, so the prisoners are separated and approached individually. Each prisoner is told that if he or she talks and hands over the other prisoner while that prisoner remains silent, the talkative prisoner will go free, while the silent prisoner will go to jail. If both prisoners talk, they will both do some jail time, although the sentence would be shorter than that for a prisoner who remained silent while another spoke, and if both prisoners remain silent, each of them will be given a very short prison sentence.
Because of the way the prisoner’s dilemma is set up, people quickly come to the conclusion that defecting and denouncing the other prisoner is the best way to respond to the situation. By remaining silent, an inmate runs the risk of being hit with a long sentence while the other inmate walks. By speaking, one prisoner may hope that the other prisoner will remain silent, in which case he breaks free. Of course, when both inmates talk, they both get some jail time, but the risk of remaining silent is perceived to be much greater than the risk of speaking out.
As a thought experiment, the prisoner’s dilemma is very interesting, and some psychology lessons reproduce a real-world version to show students how it works. It is based on the idea that people caught in difficult situations usually try to guess what others are going to do. In the case of the prisoner’s dilemma, prisoners find themselves wondering whether the other prisoner will cooperate and remain silent, or decide to betray in the hope of being free.
If an inmate assumes their partner is trustworthy and will remain silent, talking is the best response in terms of self-preservation, because there is the possibility of walking. The inmate might also assume that the partner has come to the same conclusion, in which case speaking out loud to avoid an even longer prison sentence becomes vital, and both prisoners lose out.
Many people use the prisoner’s dilemma to show how situations can escalate through a series of seemingly rational options. For example, people stuck in traffic often choose to take selfish actions in the hope of moving forward, rather than cooperating with the collective. As a result, stalemate often emerges, with everyone in the situation losing.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
