Application of various aspects of the prisoner s dilemma, what is the prisoner s dilemma?

The landlord, the upstairs is copied! Look at the following ** for yourself, and then look at the time.

Prisoner's Dilemma: Explain why it is difficult to maintain cooperation even when it is beneficial for both parties; The implication is that individual human rationality can sometimes lead to collective irrationality – intelligent human beings can be cocooned by their own intelligence, or to the detriment of the collective interest.

The Prisoner's Dilemma (Prisoner'S dilemma) refers to a special game between two ** prisoners, explaining why it is difficult to maintain cooperation even when it is beneficial for both parties.

The prisoner's dilemma is a representative example of a non-zero-sum game in game theory, reflecting that the best choice of the individual is not the best choice of the group. Although the dilemma itself is only a model nature, similar situations will frequently occur in the real world's competition, environmental protection, interpersonal relationships, etc.

The deep problem reflected in the prisoner's dilemma is that individual human rationality can sometimes lead to collective irrationality – intelligent human beings can be cocooned by their own intelligence or to the detriment of the collective interest.

The most famous example of a gambling game is the Prisoner's Dilemma, which has existed in different forms for thousands of years. The details of the prisoner's dilemma are as follows:

Let's say two suspects are arrested and charged with some kind of crime, such as stealing a priceless diamond, and the police still haven't been able to recover it. The police imprisoned the suspects separately and prevented them from colluding with each other. The police separately told them that if one party told the place where the diamonds were hidden, they could plead guilty and mitigate the crime and only serve six months in prison.

The party who does not confess will be liable for all the crimes and sentenced to 10 years in prison. If both plead guilty, both are sentenced to two years in prison. But both prisoners knew that if they were both silent, meaning that neither of them pleaded guilty, and the police did not find the diamond, then they would both be released.

Neither party has ever known the choice of the other party until he or she has made his or her own choice, which is irrevocable.

RAND researchers ask people involved in the trial questions – what would you do? Would you choose to work with another prisoner, that is, remain silent, and hope that your criminal accomplices will remain equally silent so that they both get away with it? Or will you choose to confess – betrayal, according to the Rand mathematicians – and think that I would be better off making the best choice for myself?

Both betrayal and cooperation have their reasons. Supporters of betrayal believe that the choices are simultaneous and that your choices cannot affect the choices of the other party, so it is best to protect yourself and try to get whatever benefits you can get, and sometimes even get away with the sentence. This is the Hobbesian choice of the Hobbesian world.

But imagine what it would be like if both prisoners chose to cooperate. In this way, he was not only free, but also had diamonds. The question, of course, is how do you know if the other side will first plan for themselves, make a choice that is beneficial to them, and then let you serve 10 years in prison behind the bar?

This requires a great deal of trust, and the return of trust is extremely beneficial for both parties.

<> "The Financial Knowledge Prisoner's Dilemma."

Daily financial literacy.

For example, Chestnut]** arrested two suspects in Orange and Apple, but there was not enough evidence to convict them. So ** imprisoned the suspects separately, met with the two separately and let them make a choice:

If a person pleads guilty and testifies to prosecute the other party (betraying the other party) and the other person remains silent, the person will be released immediately and the silent person will be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

If both remain silent (cooperate), they will also be sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment.

If both of them report each other (betrayal of each other), they will also be sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.

How to choose oranges?

If this choice happens more than once, will the result be the same?

Prisoner's dilemma] refers to a special game between two ** prisoners, indicating that it is difficult to maintain cooperation even when it is beneficial for both parties.

Get out of the prisoner's dilemma:

Increase the cost of betrayal.

Bringing in third parties.

Repetitive games. Let the betrayal be so big that the other party can't afford it and won't betray.

Case Study: The Prisoner Dilemma Match.

Let's say you're playing a prisoner's dilemma with a "suspect" who is locked up in another room. Moreover, imagine that this game is not played once, but many times. The final score you get for your game is the total number of years you have been imprisoned.

You want to make that score as low as possible. What strategy should you use? Should you start by confessing or keeping silent?

How will the actions of another participant affect your confessional decisions later on?

The prisoner dilemma is a complex game. To encourage cooperation, participants should punish each other for uncooperative behavior. But the previously described strategy of Jack and Jill's water cartel – that as long as the other defaults, one party defaults forever – is not forgiven.

In a game that has been repeated many times, it may be more desirable to allow participants to return to the outcome of the cooperation after a period of non-cooperation.

To illustrate which strategy is best, political scientist Robert? Robert Axelrod played a match. People enter the game through a computer program designed to repeatedly play the prisoner's dilemma.

Each program in which the game is played corresponds to all the others. The one who gets the procedure with the fewest total years in prison is the "winner".

The winner results in a simple strategy known as a pay-for-one. According to the report and the report, the participants should start with the cooperation, and then the other participant should do what he or she did the last time. Therefore, the participants must cooperate until the other party breaches the contract; He defaulted until the other party re-joined the game.

In other words, the strategy starts with friendship, punishes unfriendly participants, and, if the other person changes, gives forgiveness. To Axelrod's surprise, this simple strategy is better than all the more complex strategies that people lose.