People betray each other in the prisoner's dilemma due to maximization of expected utility
the verdict
CONTESTED
contested - the weight sits with the supporting side
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against
While game theory frames the prisoner's dilemma as involving rational agents, analytical literature also argues that expected utility maximization clashes with rival accounts of practical rationality in this scenario.
This essay argues that rationality should not be identified with expected utility maximization. It focuses on the Prisoner’s Dilemma and claims that it exhibits the clash between two rival accounts of practical rationality. The orthodox theory is dubbed a best-reply theory, as it counsels that agents choose the utility-maximizing act (or strategy). By contrast, a P-optimal theory would have agents seek to bring about an outcome which is Pareto-optimal. It is evident that in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the P-optimal outcome is P-superior to the best-reply outcome. The former requires that agents cooperate; this requires that agents realize their objectives (as measured by utility maximization) by acting to bring about some agreed outcome rather than by choosing for oneself on the basis of one’s expectations of others’ choices. The orthodox, best-reply theories insist that any cooperation must be grounded in a deeper level of non-cooperation, a view which seems to verge on incoherence. Persons are concerned to realize their aims; practical reason must surely be understood as conducive to this realization. The essay concludes with the thought that we must P-optimize; there is no going it alone. That may be a practical problem, but only a practical problem. Rightly understood, the Prisoner’s Dilemma shows the way to achieve beneficial interaction—and the way not to achieve it. We should relabel it “the Cooperator’s Opportunity”.
In game theory, the prisoner's dilemma is a thought experiment involving two rational agents, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or
In game theory, the prisoner's dilemma is a thought experiment involving two rational agents, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual gain. The dilemma arises from the fact that while defecting is rational for each agent, cooperation yields a higher payoff for each. The puzzle was designed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950 du
In game theory, the prisoner's dilemma is a thought experiment involving two rational agents, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual gain. The dilemma arises from the fact that while defecting is rational for each agent, cooperation yields a higher payoff for each. The puzzle was designed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950 during their work at the RAND Corporation. They invited economist Armen Alchian and mathematician John Williams to play a hundred rounds of the game, observing that Alchian and Williams often chose to cooperate. When asked about the results, John Nash remarked that rational behavior in the iterated version of the game can differ from that in a single-round version. This insight anticipated a key result in game theory: cooperation can emerge in repeated interactions, even in situations where it is not rational in a one-off interaction.
Albert W. Tucker later named the game…
Douglas Hofstadter suggested that people often find problems such as the prisoner's dilemma problem easier to understand when it is illustrated in the form of a simple game, or trade-off. One of several examples he used was "closed bag exchange":
Prisoner's Dilemma: Two members of a criminal gang, A and B, are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communication
Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions. It has applications in many fields of social science, and is used extensively in economics, logic, systems science and computer science. Initially, game theory addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which a participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by the losses and gains of the other participant. In the 1950s, it
William Poundstone described the game in his 1993 book Prisoner's Dilemma:
Two members of a criminal gang, A and B, are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communication with their partner. The principal charge would lead to a sentence of ten years in prison; however, the police do not have the evidence for a conviction. They plan to sentence both to two years in prison on a lesser charge but offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain: If one of them confesses to the crime of the principal charge, betraying the other, they will be pardoned and free to leave while the other must serve the entirety of the sentence instead of just two years for the lesser charge.
The dominant strategy (and therefore the best response to any possible opponent strategy), is to betray the other, which aligns with the sure-thing principle. However, both prisoners staying silent would yield a greater reward for both of them than mutual betrayal.
Everything we examined (3) — 2 independent sources
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.