I don’t like being the cooperator in the prisoners dilemma while the other side keeps defecting. I also don’t like the consequences of mutual annihilation if both of us defect. It’s definitely a pickle.
-
-
How do I know the other person is rational? Do I get any cheap talk with them?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Taking as individual events, yes. What happens when one knows the game is an endless sequence and that the other will defect endlessly?
-
Read "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod on this exact question.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
there are only iterated games. “Always cooperate” is always eliminated first in iterated games.
-
It's not a Prisoner's Dilemma, it's Chicken "Always Cooperate/Always Defect" is a stable Nash equilibrium in Chicken
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Because it's not the Prisoner's Dilemma, it's Chicken The Prisoner's Dilemma is the situation where defect/defect benefits you over cooperate/defect If defect/defect is the worst possible outcome - a head on collision, "annihilation" - then it's the exact opposite
- Show replies
-
-
-
Our political situation is actually prisoners dilemma. Dems cooperating on the face of defection leads to annihilation of our democratic norms. Defecting means putting up a fight to defend our democracy. Dems are just too afraid to defect. They’re not acting optimally.
-
And I agree with all your other points about game theory.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, you'd have to decide to invest extra costs in forcing a whole lot of other people to change their behavior, with the relative cost being higher to yourself than to them every step of the way. That's volunteering to be exhausted.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.