Revision as of 17:17, 26 January 2020 editRiftwave (talk | contribs)1 editm added question about real world example from game show← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:38, 23 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,326 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Prisoner's dilemma/Archive 5) (bot | ||
(46 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talkheader}} | |||
{{ArticleHistory | {{ArticleHistory | ||
|action1=RBP | |action1=RBP | ||
Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
|currentstatus=FFA | |currentstatus=FFA | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|listas=Prisoner's dilemma|1= | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Game theory |
{{WikiProject Game theory|importance=Top}} | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Mathematics|importance=high}} | ||
{{WikiProject Economics| |
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=High|needs-infobox=no}} | ||
{{WikiProject Computer science| |
{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=High|needs-infobox=no|needs-image=no|computing=no}} | ||
{{WikiProject Environment| |
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=High|needs-photo=no}} | ||
{{WikiProject Sociology| |
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid|needs-infobox=no}} | ||
{{WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities |
{{WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities}} | ||
⚫ | {{WikiProject Psychology |importance=Mid |needs-infobox=no}} | ||
{{Vital article|class=C|topic=Mathematics|level=5}} | |||
⚫ | {{WikiProject Psychology | |
||
}} | }} | ||
{{Archive box|auto=long}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 5 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(365d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Prisoner's dilemma/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Prisoner's dilemma/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} | |||
{{onlinesource|year=2004|section=October 2004 | {{onlinesource|year=2004|section=October 2004 | ||
| title=New Tack Wins Prisoner's Dilemma | | title=New Tack Wins Prisoner's Dilemma | ||
Line 41: | Line 40: | ||
| org=Wired Magazine | | org=Wired Magazine | ||
| url=http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=81042 | | url=http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=81042 | ||
|small=yes}} |
|small=yes}} | ||
== what? == | |||
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=B|category=Math|small=yes}} | |||
''A purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent for purely self-interested reasons first.'' | |||
== Personal comment == | |||
Why is that sentence in the "Nice" section? How is a purely selfish strategy "nice?" ] (]) 04:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
:I also don't understand the logic of that sentence. How is a ''purely'' selfish strategy not purely selfish? ] (]) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Dr. Duffy's comment on this article == | |||
::I didn't find many mentions of "purely selfish" in decent sources after a quick search, although I think it means does not consider the other party at all, that is, it always chooses the best outcome--defect. I am changing this to "This strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent for purely self-interested reasons first" for now. ] (]) 02:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah, this section is a bit convoluted. "Nice" simply means the algorithm will not defect first, compared to algorithms which will try to defect. ] (]) 01:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Christmas truce in "See also" == | |||
Dr. Duffy has reviewed , and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality: | |||
No inline citation is given for why the ] is mentioned at ] of this article, and mentioning it in this article seems inappropriate - can anyone explain? As I understand it, the Christmas truce was a ] and therefore should instead be mentioned in that article: | |||
- if both sides cooperate, everybody involved gets to live that day and enjoy the truce; | |||
{{quote|text=A rambling mess. No mention of dominance, Nash equilibrium or the uniqueness of the Nash equilibrium in the game form. | |||
"A very narrow interpretation rationality" is a weak, subjective statement. Indeed rationality in the context of this game is not defined but simply involves each player playing a best response to the payoff incentives of the game. | |||
- if both sides betray, then the war continues as usual with some casualties being expected; | |||
}} | |||
- if one side cooperates with the other betraying, then the cooperating side suffers massive casualties due to an ill-fated attempt to cross ], while the betraying side can shoot the enemy with impunity, but does not enjoy a truce that day. ] (]) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
As it turns out, the mentioning of the Christmas truce was introduced in with no reason given. ] (]) 19:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly. | |||
== The grammar is wrong. == | |||
Dr. Duffy has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Misplaced Pages article: | |||
] redirects to ]. The plural possessive, however, is the correct form (regardless of how many times the mistake has been repeated in the past) and the singular possessive is wrong. | |||
While there's only one dilemma (it's the same dilemma), it ''must'' be faced by multiple prisoners, otherwise the entire thought experiment is meaningless. Therefore multiple prisoners face the dilemma in question. It's the prisoners' dilemma, not any one prisoner's dilemma. | |||
This grammatical atrocity must be ferreted out and stopped anywhere it can, and redirecting from the correct grammar to the wrong grammar is enabling the reign of the kingdom of the Doofuses. | |||
*'''Reference ''': John Duffy & Huan Xie, 2012. "Group Size and Cooperation among Strangers," Working Papers 12010, Concordia University, Department of Economics. | |||
Next step: figuring out how to make Chrome stop underlining the correct form. | |||
] (]) 16:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 03:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Hi, What you are commenting is not a grammar issue, it is just a preference for naming the game. Grammatically both expressions are correct. We could also argue that the dilemma is not really about prisoners but about criminals or defendants, and argue in favor of changing the name of the game accordingly. Now, i personally prefer singular, as it puts emphasis on the point of view of one (arbitrary) criminal/defendant/prisoner, and the concept of Nash equilibrium also puts emphasis on the issue with (isolated/distributed) individual decisions. I checked the corresponding wiki page in about 10 other languages and singular is used in all. ] (]) 06:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Removed the vague mention of "restrictive interpretation of rationality" and moved the discussion of dominance and nash equilibrium up a section to be more prominent (though it was there in the General Form section), but I don't think it fits in the (already quite long) lede. ] (]) 14:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Plus/minus and payoff/cost == | |||
== 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 | |||
I suspect that many may be puzzled comparing the "payoff" matrix in the ], displaying years in prison as payoffs, and the one in the ], displaying, as expected, a more desirable payoff with a greater value than a less desirable one. | |||
== Dubious criticism of Hofstadter's briefcase game == | |||
We ask for instance in a general prisoner's dilemma that <math>R>P</math>, where ''R'' is the payoff for cooperating=staying silent, and ''P'' that for defecting=testifying; this is inconsistent with payoffs being years in prison. The matrix displaying years in prison should rather be called "cost matrix", or be qualified with some other negative word like "punishment/penalty/sentence/...", and then the page should have a word of explanation to relate payoffs and costs. Alternatively we can display negatives of years in prison, and keep calling it "payoff matrix": this is consistent with the definition of a general prisoner's dilemma. ] (]) 05:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Moral philosophy == | |||
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?] (]) 14:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
I was reading today about the applications of prisoner's dilemma in moral philosophy, and noticed that there is no section about it on this page! | |||
: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 . 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. ] (]) 17:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
I just added a new section, along with some opinions. Feel free to expand and discuss | |||
== I still can't reconcile these 2 statements in the current article == | |||
== External links modified == | |||
I still can't reconcile these 2 statements in the current article: | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
"For cooperation to emerge between rational players, the number of rounds must be unknown or infinite. | |||
I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051002195142/http://econ.hevra.haifa.ac.il/~mbengad/seminars/whole1.pdf to http://econ.hevra.haifa.ac.il/~mbengad/seminars/whole1.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140421055745/http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2004/oct/04_151.shtml to http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2004/oct/04_151.shtml | |||
"Another aspect of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is that this tacit agreement between players has always been established successfully even when the number of iterations is made public to both sides." | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 01:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
:I think the idea is that when real people play repeated rounds they do not follow the rational / dominant strategy, and co-operation still emerges. I can believe this is true, but it would probably be better supported by a reference. ] (]) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
::I can find references in which co-operation emerges in a finite game (I'll leave this reference here as an example<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cooper |first1=Russell |last2=DeJong |first2=Douglas V. |last3=Forsythe |first3=Robert |last4=Ross |first4=Thomas W. |title=Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games |journal=Games and Economic Behavior |date=1996 |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=187-218 |doi=10.1006/game.1996.0013}}</ref>) but the word ''always'' needs some justification. I'm tempted to rephrase without the ''always'' but equally good if there is a citation to support it. ] (]) 08:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
{{Reflist-talk}}<!-- Template:Reflist-talk creates a section-level reference list box. Please add comments and references for this section's discussion above this template. When a new discussion begins, the new section will be added below this template. Add a new {{Reflist-talk}} at the end of that section if needed. --> | |||
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512175243/http://www.econ.nagoya-cu.ac.jp/~yhamagu/ultimatum.pdf to http://www.econ.nagoya-cu.ac.jp/~yhamagu/ultimatum.pdf | |||
== Suppose a prisoner testified but perjured their testimony with false extraneous details. == | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
Just saying. Hope no policy has been broken by my use of this. ] (]) 17:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
== Lacks reference == | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
The following paragraph lacks reference. | |||
== Real-Life Example: An Individual's Behaviour towards the Environment == | |||
"In contrast to the one-time prisoner's dilemma game, the optimal strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma depends upon the strategies of likely opponents, and how they will react to defections and cooperation. For example, if a population consists entirely of players who always defect, except for one who follows the tit-for-tat strategy, that person is at a slight disadvantage because of the loss on the first turn. In such a population, the optimal strategy is to defect every time. More generally, given a population with a certain percentage of always-defectors with the rest being tit-for-tat players, the optimal strategy depends on the percentage and number of iterations played." ] (]) 02:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
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? | |||
] (]) 11:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:38, 23 November 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prisoner's dilemma article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
Prisoner's dilemma is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 16, 2004. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
what?
A purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent for purely self-interested reasons first.
Why is that sentence in the "Nice" section? How is a purely selfish strategy "nice?" 107.77.195.33 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I also don't understand the logic of that sentence. How is a purely selfish strategy not purely selfish? 107.77.195.33 (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't find many mentions of "purely selfish" in decent sources after a quick search, although I think it means does not consider the other party at all, that is, it always chooses the best outcome--defect. I am changing this to "This strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent for purely self-interested reasons first" for now. Winston (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, this section is a bit convoluted. "Nice" simply means the algorithm will not defect first, compared to algorithms which will try to defect. Winston (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Christmas truce in "See also"
No inline citation is given for why the Christmas truce is mentioned at the bottom of this article, and mentioning it in this article seems inappropriate - can anyone explain? As I understand it, the Christmas truce was a stag hunt and therefore should instead be mentioned in that article:
- if both sides cooperate, everybody involved gets to live that day and enjoy the truce;
- if both sides betray, then the war continues as usual with some casualties being expected;
- if one side cooperates with the other betraying, then the cooperating side suffers massive casualties due to an ill-fated attempt to cross no man's land, while the betraying side can shoot the enemy with impunity, but does not enjoy a truce that day. TheDestroyer111 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
As it turns out, the mentioning of the Christmas truce was introduced in a June 2010 edit with no reason given. TheDestroyer111 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The grammar is wrong.
The Prisoners' Dilemma redirects to The Prisoner's Dilemma. The plural possessive, however, is the correct form (regardless of how many times the mistake has been repeated in the past) and the singular possessive is wrong.
While there's only one dilemma (it's the same dilemma), it must be faced by multiple prisoners, otherwise the entire thought experiment is meaningless. Therefore multiple prisoners face the dilemma in question. It's the prisoners' dilemma, not any one prisoner's dilemma.
This grammatical atrocity must be ferreted out and stopped anywhere it can, and redirecting from the correct grammar to the wrong grammar is enabling the reign of the kingdom of the Doofuses.
Next step: figuring out how to make Chrome stop underlining the correct form. 2601:1C2:5000:8CC7:F5EF:AC6C:C8:5638 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, What you are commenting is not a grammar issue, it is just a preference for naming the game. Grammatically both expressions are correct. We could also argue that the dilemma is not really about prisoners but about criminals or defendants, and argue in favor of changing the name of the game accordingly. Now, i personally prefer singular, as it puts emphasis on the point of view of one (arbitrary) criminal/defendant/prisoner, and the concept of Nash equilibrium also puts emphasis on the issue with (isolated/distributed) individual decisions. I checked the corresponding wiki page in about 10 other languages and singular is used in all. 37.67.33.80 (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Plus/minus and payoff/cost
I suspect that many may be puzzled comparing the "payoff" matrix in the Prisoner's dilemma#Premise, displaying years in prison as payoffs, and the one in the Prisoner's dilemma#Generalized form, displaying, as expected, a more desirable payoff with a greater value than a less desirable one. We ask for instance in a general prisoner's dilemma that , where R is the payoff for cooperating=staying silent, and P that for defecting=testifying; this is inconsistent with payoffs being years in prison. The matrix displaying years in prison should rather be called "cost matrix", or be qualified with some other negative word like "punishment/penalty/sentence/...", and then the page should have a word of explanation to relate payoffs and costs. Alternatively we can display negatives of years in prison, and keep calling it "payoff matrix": this is consistent with the definition of a general prisoner's dilemma. 37.67.33.80 (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Moral philosophy
I was reading today about the applications of prisoner's dilemma in moral philosophy, and noticed that there is no section about it on this page! I just added a new section, along with some opinions. Feel free to expand and discuss
I still can't reconcile these 2 statements in the current article
I still can't reconcile these 2 statements in the current article:
"For cooperation to emerge between rational players, the number of rounds must be unknown or infinite.
"Another aspect of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is that this tacit agreement between players has always been established successfully even when the number of iterations is made public to both sides."
~~~~ Mathiastck (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the idea is that when real people play repeated rounds they do not follow the rational / dominant strategy, and co-operation still emerges. I can believe this is true, but it would probably be better supported by a reference. Mgp28 (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can find references in which co-operation emerges in a finite game (I'll leave this reference here as an example) but the word always needs some justification. I'm tempted to rephrase without the always but equally good if there is a citation to support it. Mgp28 (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- Cooper, Russell; DeJong, Douglas V.; Forsythe, Robert; Ross, Thomas W. (1996). "Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games". Games and Economic Behavior. 12 (2): 187–218. doi:10.1006/game.1996.0013.
Suppose a prisoner testified but perjured their testimony with false extraneous details.
Just saying. Hope no policy has been broken by my use of this. Tathagata1st (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Lacks reference
The following paragraph lacks reference.
"In contrast to the one-time prisoner's dilemma game, the optimal strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma depends upon the strategies of likely opponents, and how they will react to defections and cooperation. For example, if a population consists entirely of players who always defect, except for one who follows the tit-for-tat strategy, that person is at a slight disadvantage because of the loss on the first turn. In such a population, the optimal strategy is to defect every time. More generally, given a population with a certain percentage of always-defectors with the rest being tit-for-tat players, the optimal strategy depends on the percentage and number of iterations played." 202.92.130.118 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Mathematics
- C-Class vital articles in Mathematics
- C-Class game theory articles
- Top-importance game theory articles
- C-Class mathematics articles
- High-priority mathematics articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- High-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- C-Class Computer science articles
- High-importance Computer science articles
- WikiProject Computer science articles
- C-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press