Talk:Prisoner's dilemma/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prisoner's dilemma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dubious criticism of Hofstadter's briefcase game

After describing Hofstadter's briefcase version of PD, the article contains this sentence: "However, in this case both players cooperating and both players defecting actually give the same result, assuming no gains from trade exist, so chances of mutual cooperation, even in repeated games, are few." That seems like a strange way to interpret the case, and hardly a criticism of it. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume, since they're trading at all, that player A has a utility-function according to which diamonds & money > diamonds > money > nothing, and player B has a utility function according to which diamonds & money > money > diamonds > nothing? Does this criticism show up anywhere in a reliable source?50.191.21.222 (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree this is dubious. You could call this the Ebayer's dilemma. the theory is that the two attach different values to the goods being sold, and the price agreed is higher than the seller's value, and lower than the buyer's value, and as such both parties think they have made a good deal by trading. It would not be rational to sell a good for a value equal to or less than the value you ascribe to it; conversely it would not be rational to buy it for a value equal to or more than you think it's actually worth. Cash naturally has its face value for either side. Described here. By going through with the trade, both sides realise a value: the seller sells the item for more than she thinks it is worth; the buyer buys it for less than he is ultimately prepared to pay. Therefore any arms' length commercial transaction between rational counterparties is a positive sum game; a mutual defection is a zero-sum game (though there will be nominal frictional costs from having wasted time arriving at the bargain, so defecting will actually be negligibly a negative sum game). I have deleted the criticism, which I suspect is also OR. ElectricRay (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Golden Balls gameshow as a real life example?

There is a somewhat reported on instance of the game show Golden Balls presenting its contestants with a prisoner's dilemma (centered around prize money) and one contestant subverting the intended conflict. One article touches upon the event here [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riftwave (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Real-Life Example: An Individual's Behaviour towards the Environment

The section "In environmental studies" mentions only the implications of the PD in state politics. However, the behaviour of individuals regarding protecting the environment is another example of the PD. That should be mentioned, too. For example: Why should I not litter/save energy/...., if everybody else does? Stefanhanoi (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"If the game is played exactly N times and both players know this, then it is optimal to defect in all rounds. The only possible Nash equilibrium is to always defect. The proof is inductive: one might as well defect on the last turn, since the opponent will not have a chance to later retaliate. Therefore, both will defect on the last turn. Thus, the player might as well defect on the second-to-last turn, since the opponent will defect on the last no matter what is done, and so on. The same applies if the game length is unknown but has a known upper limit." This paragraph appears to be incorrect. It is not optimal to defect in all rounds just because the game is played in N rounds and both players know this. The argument appears to be fallacious. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The above paragraph is the standard argument for finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma. It is not fallacious. The point is with backward induction, there is no way that one can design a retaliating strategy if the other player decides not to cooperate. (Consider just repeat the game twice, N is not necessarily a large number.) What you had in mind resembles more like the case of infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma, in which case cooperation can become an equilibrium. --EpsilonToZero (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal comment

The one thing I don't understand about this dilemma is if Person A decides to snitch on Person B, then even if B wanted to keep his mouth shut he'll change his mind and snitch on A. In the long run it's far more advantageous for both of them to cooperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.163.37 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is normally for discussion about probleme from the article, not discussion on the subject

That's the point effectively. But the one who cooperate will hope the other one does the same (for example when a authoritarian governement like the Nazi Regimesteps-in, some might cooperate and denounce others in hope state will colaborate and leave them alone. --Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A huge part of 'the prisoner's dilemma' is that the two actors cannot communicate with each other (or know each other's intention/action), and have no way to get back at each other afterwards. Cipher821 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dyy122dyy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prisoner%27s_dilemma/Archive_5&oldid=1166350293"