Prisoner's Dilemma

[deserteagleeye]

Just beat Virtue's Last Reward and it got me really interested in the theme of trust and making the right choice vs. the rational choice using the Prisoner's Dilemma. (Here's an example off of Wikipedia.)

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with the other. The police admit they don't have enough evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They plan to sentence both to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the police offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain. If he testifies against his partner, he will go free while the partner will get three years in prison on the main charge. Oh, yes, there is a catch ... If both prisoners testify against each other, both will be sentenced to two years in jail.

So I'm gonna play the cop and propose to you a similar dilemma. You and your best friend(or person closest to you) are the criminals and are faced with a harsher sentence.

If you and your partner refuse to testify against each other you will both be given 2 years in prison.

If you tesify and your partner refuses, you will be set free and your partner will get 7 years and vice versa.

If you both testify, you'll both get 5 years in prison.

This one is hard for me because me and my friend are mostly sincere with each other but we've only known each other for a couple years. I'd probably choose to keep my mouth shut because I'm such a bleedin' heart.

So what'll be Escapists?

 

[tippy2k2]

Eh, I liked The Joker's prisoner dilemma a lot more (since I'm such an upstanding citizen, I would never be in a situation that would cause me a shit ton of jail time like your example). However, I will go ahead and answer your question and assume that I'm being arrested for....being too awesome or something.

With the group I hang out with, I wouldn't be snitchin. I don't believe any of my close friends would break and since we're in this life of crime together, there is hopefully a "honor among thieves" type deal. If I snitch, I don't think I want to see what's going to happen in seven years when a very pissed off former friend gets out...

Spoiler: Here is The Prisoner Dilemma as presented by The Joker in The Dark Knight for the five of you who have not seen it. Spoilers for The Dark Knight

 

[sextus the crazy]

Just beat Virtue's Last Reward

Fuck yeah, love that game. And 999.

OT: Ally. I trust my close friends.

 

[Rawne1980]

I've known my friends for close to 30 years, me and my wife are godparents to their kids.

I wouldn't take any bargains.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The problem with the dilemna, is that it's not really a rational question. It's not so much a matter of thinking it through, it's about being stuck on your own going "Oh noes! The police have caught me." and knowing your friend is doing that as well. Even if you know how it works, you're still frightened.

Spoiler: Here is The Prisoner Dilemma as presented by The Joker in The Dark Knight for the five of you who have not seen it. Spoilers for The Dark Knight

I'd like to think the Joker lied about which detonator controls which bomb for extra laughs.

 

[Arakasi]

If it were really part of a criminal organisation I would go free only to be murdered by the rest of the gang.

But ignoring that, I'd not testify anyway (assuming I thought the criminal organisation was a good thing).

 

[Shocksplicer]

Pretty sure this was a thread a couple of weeks ago.

The correct answer is to not testify.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

I've known my best friend since we were children and have never betrayed eachother.

His ass would be testified against almost immediately. I remember going to the a few prisons (not for anything I did and not to stay behind bars) and I've known plenty of people who have been to prison (my parents included) and I want absolutely nothing to do with it. Any chance to get out of it I would take.

 

[krazykidd]

I would not testify againg her . My best friend and i completly trust each other . So much that , even if she did testify against me , i wouldn't even be mad .

 

[thiosk]

I hate the prisoners dilemma because its always framed in terms of being a prisoner. Also, they're always framed in this "magical vacuum of no available outside information"

Why not use the "douchebag group project dilemma" in which a lazy professor assigns an inane group assignment that counts as a large percentage of your grade. You can all work equally hard, or you can ride on the coattails of your partners and sip cocktails on the beach, but of course if you all slack off, you all fail.

I always take the fourth option: delegate all responsibility away, and choose your partners carefully. I guarantee you that if we were in a criminal operation together, you're the patsy, so I testify in a heartbeat safe in the knowledge that you are the biggest sucker in history. Not the biggest sucker in history, you say? Guess what, you're not in my "gang."

Same with the assignments. Immediately draw self up to full height and assume leadership, then delegate annoying responsibility, while I save for myself the part of the project I find least annoying. Engender broadbased support and select partners whom are not the smartest in the room, but the most insecure-- the ones who would be most likely to do everything I tell them to do. In this case, I do nothing, but I ensure that everyone does excellent on the project *(and walk out with all the cookies)*.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

So what'll be Escapists?

I don't think it actually works that way. Either you make a deal with the DA for a specific sentence (like 2 years for testifying) OR you don't and it goes to trial. I don't think the middle option of "you both testify and get 5" actually exists in real, modern criminal justice system.

In America, that is. I have no idea about anywhere else's legal system.

However, the best case scenario is still not testifying. In your situation, far better to gamble on 2 years and risk 7 than guarantee 5. And it would guarantee it, because in real criminal justice, if one testifies, then the DA can usually talk the other into doing it too.

/人◕‿‿◕人\\

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

So what'll be Escapists?

I don't think it actually works that way. Either you make a deal with the DA for a specific sentence (like 2 years for testifying) OR you don't and it goes to trial. I don't think the middle option of "you both testify and get 5" actually exists in real, modern criminal justice system.

In America, that is. I have no idea about anywhere else's legal system.

However, the best case scenario is still not testifying. In your situation, far better to gamble on 2 years and risk 7 than guarantee 5. And it would guarantee it, because in real criminal justice, if one testifies, then the DA can usually talk the other into doing it too.

/人◕‿‿◕人\\

Yea, I'm gonna have to agree with that. I'm not an expert or anything, but I took a law enforcement course during my Junior year of Highschool, and I'm wholeheartedly convinced that middle option is bullshit.

On topic though: Nobody likes a rat, snitches get stitches, etc.

 

[lacktheknack]

We both took the economics class that explained this to us.

Neither of us would testify, thanks.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

I wouldn't testify, of course. Not only do I suspect that my best friends probably aren't going to tattle on me, but it'd be somewhat unlikely that our friendship would survive if I tattled on them, whether they did on me or not. Furthermore...

...you're sort of missing the point about the prisoner's dilemma. It only works if the two prisoner's don't care about each other's well-being. If they care about each other, the obvious choice (as well as the one with the best EV) is to keep silent.

 

[Dracthor]

Knowing the kind of sap that I am I would refuse to testify. Even if the guy was a big jerk and I know he would sell me out, if I testified he would most likely shiv me the first chance he gets, or hunt me down on the off chance he didn't testify. Losing 7 years doesn't sound as bad as losing it all after 7 (or sooner). Also I bet I could use that time in jail to become a writer.

 

[mad825]

If you and your partner refuse to testify against each other you will both be given 2 years in prison.

If you tesify and your partner refuses, you will be set free and your partner will get 7 years and vice versa.

If you both testify, you'll both get 5 years in prison.

Erm, what? Defecting is more rewarding than co-operating when it should be punishing.

It should be like this:

If you and your partner refuse to testify against each other you will both be given 10 years in prison. (Defect-defect)

If you tesify and your partner refuses, you will be given 6 years and your partner will get 2 years and vice versa. (cooperate-Defect)

If you both testify, you'll both get 4 years in prison.(cooperate-cooperate)

OT: I'm all for Tit-for-tat.