| Revision as of 17:17, 26 January 2020 editRiftwave (talk | contribs)1 editm added question about real world example from game show← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:27, 27 January 2020 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,326 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Prisoner's dilemma/Archive 4) (botNext edit → |
| Line 48: |
Line 48: |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
== Dr. Duffy's comment on this article == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Duffy has reviewed , and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{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. |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Duffy has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Misplaced Pages article: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Reference ''': John Duffy & Huan Xie, 2012. "Group Size and Cooperation among Strangers," Working Papers 12010, Concordia University, Department of Economics. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 16:56, 19 May 2016 (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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Golden Balls gameshow as a real life example? == |
|
== Golden Balls gameshow as a real life example? == |
| Line 80: |
Line 57: |
|
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) |
|
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 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 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) |
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
== External links modified == |
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.
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
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?50.191.21.222 (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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?
Stefanhanoi (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
