#prisoner's dilemma

[niuttuc]

Come play magic: the gathering! You can run psychological experiments and game theory concepts through your fellow players.

[felixcloud6288]

I have an idea I'd like to try next time I have to babysit my nephews (5 and 7). I'm going to buy Dokapon Kingdom for the Switch, and have them play a 10 week campaign with me. Before playing, I'll tell them if I don't win, I'll take them out for ice cream, but whoever comes in first place gets a double scoop. Then I'll play just well enough that I always stay in second place.

Let's see if 3rd place would rather his brother get more ice cream if it means getting some ice cream or if he'd rather get no ice cream if it means his brother doesn't get more.

[khruschevshoe]

Share with your friends! We wanna get as large of a reblog sample as possible!

@henrythepug @meet-me-behindthemall12 @flower-crowned-lady @evelynhug0 @glitterfairy-21225 @neverwritewhatyouknow @augment-techs @neutral-wizard @delphiniumblooms @titty-goblin @stardreamt @infp-obsessing-over-everything @phanofpanic @sugdenlovesdingle @legless-fish-on-rollerskates @beautifulurbanarchitecture @ellsprincess

[theuntoaster]

If 20% of people or less vote for option A, everyone who voted A wins.

If more than 20% vote option A, everyone who voted option B wins.

[haaaaaaaaaaaave-you-met-ted]

Prisoner's Dilemma by Serena Malyon

[system-of-a-feather]

Here's the thing with syscourse; everyones stuck in the prisoner's dilema, but if you swap "keep silent" with "actually have a fucking discussion" and "confess" with "argue your position with hopes of winning the debate"

If you are here trying to have a discussion and try to collaboratively get a clearer image of what is going on and the other person is trying to win and argue their position, then the person arguing will "win" solely by the nature of the differing approaches.

If you BOTH try to argue your position and win, you BOTH will waste your life away banging your head against a wall and worsening your overall health, thus both loosing.

If you BOTH try to have a discussion to get a clearer image of what is going on, you ACTUALLY can have a pleasant and enjoyable discussion where you both can get a bigger more clearer and nuanced opinion of what the fuck is going on.

Unfortunately, as the prisoner's dilemma research goes to state, is that the most common result is that both parties choose to "confess" and in this case, argue with the intent to win and all parties suffer.

[hunterofthehunters]

okay no vlr spoilers since i've just gotten past the first escape room (and voting segment) but

i genuinely cannot really think of a reason why anyone, under any circumstances, would ever vote betray in a game like this. friends and i spoke abt this last night and i can't get it out of my head.

it's not just "oh that's horrible, how could someone do that". it's "oh that's stupid. why would you ever make that mistake.

lemme elaborate:

first point. by itself, the usage of the prisoner's dilemma in this game works fine. it was designed to create a difficult choice wherein trust is hard and betrayal maximizes gains while minimizing losses. that's a sensible thing in a void.

but this nonary game isn't in a void. it's not an isolated situation. when you vote, everyone sees it.

meaning, when you vote betray, every person in the game is now aware you are willing to vote betray. this dramatically changes the voting dynamic. now that you've established you are willing to betray others, you're now stuck in a deadlock. your game ends. because why would anyone ever risk voting 'ally' with you? it's safer to vote 'betray'.

and with how BP works here, you're screwed. you forfeit the ability to gain points from then on. and if you're stupid enough to vote 'ally', you lose most of the points you gained by hitting betray prior. is it still net positive? sure, numerically. in terms of trust? why should anyone take that at face value after the first incident?

secondly. zero iii fucked up a bit in the intro with just one little implication:

the ambidex nonary games are not a zero sum game.

any number of players can exit the 9 door, as long as they have 9 BP.

this means there is no downside to other players gaining BP alongside you. therefore, ally has no effective downside. you don't need to worry about players trying to escape before you, and hell, if everyone hits all-ally at the start? you'll all hit 9 BP by round 3 (3 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 9).

in addition, voting ally doesn't really antagonize anyone or make them feel threatened, either. why would it? both parties benefit. both parties get closer to leaving. it's a sincere win-win.

"but what if... someone betrays me later? they could escape early if-"

math time.

say we start in round 1. as established, all players begin with 3 BP. betraying in this round would be idiotic, because

3+3 = 6

you're still short 3 points. "ah, but you see, i can betray someone in round 2 next, and--" if you think anyone will be stupid enough to ally so you can betray them at this point, you're literally huffing your own farts. i tore this point down already.

so, assuming you did the smart thing and built trust in round 1. 3+2 = 5, and you enter round 2 with 5 points. what next?

if we betray here...

5 + 3 = 8.

oof. owie. so close, but not quite! 1 point short, and it'd take 1 more round minimum to escape. the same as it'd take for you to escape if your stupid ass had just voted ally all 3 times.

and now you have a new problem.

"Oh i voted betray by mistake! We can ally again! mb! :)))"

you dumb asshole. you stupid dick. do you really think people will buy that? even if we assume everyone else is sitting at 7 except for your victim, do you seriously think they'd trust that? no. none of them would. not a one.

this also ignores the idea they could even like your victim. with them sitting at 3 points again, the game is extended another round if they want them to escape. you are intentionally dragging everyone's stay out for that.

i'm not even gonna discuss that zero never specified that players couldn't assault one another. i doubt the bunny would even outline that. they'd prob pull up a chair.

so, your betrayal strat moves to round 3. at which point... why? why bother? the only reason you would is because you'd actively want to leave a player(s) behind. and you'd need everyone else at 9 (assuming they all did the ally strat) to agree. are you confident you're gonna sneak by 8 other players for that?

all of this is just discussing the game itself, not the story around it. i trust uchikoshi enough to imagine he's got a plan for this that'll blast my enby dick right off.

but so far my read on VLR is that we have some fuckin idiots in this game that seem thoroughly convinced they are the smartest people in the room.

just vote ally. i promise you, pretending to be edgy and 'logical' isn't impressing anyone, phi.

[tracing-lines-in-the-infinite]

An ongoing list of my favourite lines from each episode of Person Of Interest

2.20: "you can stay there and die in that bed, or you can get up and help me find the bastard who murdered you"

2.12: "John Warren is still an illusion, the incomplete footprint of a man who doesn't exist"

1.01: "When you find that one person who connects you to the world you become someone different. When that person is taken from you, wo do you become then?"

1.02: "look, your predicament is not my doing or my concern"

1.03: "That's one of the things you learn over there. In the end we're all alone, and no one's cpming to save you"

1.04: "Which so you think I'll regret more; letting you live or letting you die?"

1.07: "I thought about taking your life, John. But I realize that would seem ungrateful."

2.22: "You lied to me. I believed you. I believed in you."

[depresstrogen]

What's really important I think for economists to understand is that while a basic analysis using game theory tells you that in a prisoner's dilemma a rational individual would tend towards choosing to talk, this is no longer accurate in a society that hates cops

[evilspitefulviledisgustingmalice]

The World's Worst Thought Experiment: The Swamp Prisoner's Trolley Problemmament

The rules are as follows

A laser is going to vaporize one of your loved ones.

You can press a button to redirect it to 5 of your loved ones, each one will be rebuilt using the scattered atoms immediately afterwards, exactly as they were before.

There is another person on the other side of the room, who has their problem set up exactly like yours.

If you both press the button, the lasers will cross paths and will explode, killing all of your loved ones, and the stranger's loved ones.

Do you want to risk losing all your loved ones? Is more loved ones dying worth having an identical clone that replaces them? Is it okay to harm others who wouldn't be in danger because more of your loved ones will be around afterwards?

[kael-writ]

every time the prisoner's dilemma comes up, no one ever seems to talk about the concept of sticking to personal morality regardless of if it destroys you because of righteousness and/or personal feelings, how you feel about yourself;

then there is your reputation in society- a prisoner being known as a snitch or steadfast is a huge social impact on them.

Also, If someone knows that a person will never break a personal rule of morality - say, Joker knowing the Batman will never deliberately kill someone - that is entirely predictable and exploitable.

Interesting considerations when we expand past trying to use cold logic in a vacuum

[sixthrangerknight]

reminder of the rules:

Please reblog if you vote.

You get a MAJOR WIN if you choose Betray and Cooperate gets the most votes.

You get a LESSER WIN if you vote Cooperate and it gets the most votes.

You get a LESSER LOSS if you vote Betray and it gets the most votes.

You get a MAJOR LOSS if you vote Cooperate and Betray gets the most votes.

[suzilight]

What Game Theory Reveals About Life, The Universe and Everything by Veritasium

This is a video about the most famous problem in Game Theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

“In the short term it is often the environment that shapes the player… but in the long run it is the players that shape the environment.”

I appreciate the long list of Reference Links in the Description.

A massive thank you to Prof. Robert Axelrod and Prof. Steven Strogatz for their expertise and time. To read more about Prof. Axelrod’s Passion for Cooperation visit: https://ve42.co/Axelrod2023

A massive thanks to the wonderful Nicky Case. Nicky’s “The Evolution of Trust” game was a huge inspiration for this video. We highly recommend you play this excellent game yourself, over at: https://ncase.me/trust/

[usunezukoinezu]

''(on the Prisoner's Dilemma and morality) The question of probity - remaining tight-lipped because it is the ''right'' thing to do - does not come into it. Quite apart from the dubious moral worth of placing oneself in a position that is self-evidently prone to exploitation, the whole purpose of the Prisoner's Dilemma is to ascertain optimal behavioral strategies not within frameworks of morality, with philosophical enforcers working the doors, but within a psychological vacuum of zero moral gravity … such as that which comprises the natural world at large.''

-Kevin Dutton, The Wisdom of Psychopaths

[sparethedreamer]

First off, Veritasium videos are so cool and fun to watch. They're science-y education videos that take complex topics and explain them in an easier to understand way. They're great. Highly recommend.

Today I watched Veritasium's video on the Prisoner's Dilemma and holy cow! Loved it and wanted to share it. It's a cool topic + history lesson + real life applications + really really good message about life. It shows how it's beneficial to be kind and forgiving but not a pushover. It explains how even if you're not altruistic and only focused on your own self interest, it pays to cooperate and not take advantage of others.

Here's the video. Enjoy!

[i-singularity]

The Weaponization of Culture and Objects

The use of epistemological attacks concerning species life or reproduction have escalated in to polarized conflicts and war. Humans need to sustain as a species:

Oxygen Food Water Clothing Shelter Reproduction

The elementary epistemology of Humans:

See Hear Taste Smell Touch

The criminalization or the imposing of a racketeered influenced structure over the individual weaponizes the basic minimum to survive. One would live for maybe two weeks at the very most without water. One month is the outer boundary for lack of food. A person could become brain dead in only minutes without oxygen.

The external environment especially the extremes of heat and cold help despotism criminalize life itself.

Yemen is a solid example to where access to food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical attention are controlled by warring militias and factions. Religious epistemology is also a contributing factor in the morbidity of the population. Different interpretations of Islam are driving conflict.

The United States and Gulf state actors support the conflict. The Houthis are Shiites aligned with Iran and in January 2015, rebelled leading President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi to resign whom was leading the Sunni government.

Amnesty International reports that the intervention of regional powers in Yemen’s conflict, including Iran and Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia, threatens to draw the country into the broader Sunni Shia divide. Numerous Iranian weapons shipments to Houthi rebels have been intercepted in the Gulf of Aden by a Saudi naval blockade in place since April 2015. In response, Iran has dispatched its own naval convoy, which further risks military escalation between the two countries.

The conflict continues to exact a heavy toll on Yemeni civilians. Yemen is the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The UN estimates that 60 percent of the estimated 377,000 deaths in Yemen since 2015 are the result of indirect causes like food insecurity and lack of accessible health services. Nearly 74 percent, or twenty five million Yemenis, remain in need of assistance. Five million are at risk of famine, and a cholera outbreak has affected over one million people. All sides of the conflict are reported to have violated human rights and international humanitarian law.

The use of Prisoner's Dilemma to divide and conquer and or marginalize is easily demonstrated by the regional and international hegemons to continue what borders on genocide.

Democracy is not stable nor is the human repertoire. Lawlessness and economic hardship distract for any attempt by NGO's to act decisively. These issues are replicable over time any where.

Hence this defection not the cooperation of the rule of law.