The Quixotic Nature of Man and Its Practicality
The Prisoner’s Dilemma, perhaps one of the most familiar and iconic scenarios in Game Theory. Simple, yes. But so devilishly, deceptively simple- like playing a game of rock, paper, scissors. Game Theory suggests that the best, most rational situation, that is, the Nash Equilibrium is to sell out the other prisoner. Yet somehow, practice shows different results from theory.
Now, I can’t be the only one who wonders what will arise from the Prisoner’s Dilemma actually being applied to real prisoners, can I? Well, back in the summer of 2013, two economists from the University of Hamburg had real inmates participate in a sequential run of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Surprisingly, inmates cooperated around 56% of the time despite the fact that betraying someone cooperating results in higher payoff. Why are the actual results so far from the expected? Perhaps going back even further will help us understand.
In 1978, Dr.Robert Axelrod from the University of Michigan ran Prisoner’s Dilemma tournaments by pitting computers running different strategies against each other. The strategy that ended up the most successful was “Tit for Tat”, a strategy that mirrors the opponent’s actions. This strategy allows for the prospect of cooperation to happen without letting the player become too vulnerable. Tying back to the inmate experiment, there is some level of cooperation that exists in practice but doesn’t in rational theory.
The individual benefits the most by selling out the opponent, yet he does not. The Prisoner’s Dilemma, in this manner, is an example of Social Contract Theory. As Thomas Hobbes had put it
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be content ed with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. -Leviathan VI
And as much as people are selfishly motivated, ultimately their own safety will outweigh benefit and seek compromise through cooperation, by virtue of being self-serving. This is why we often find this strange trust in a game where being ruthless is the option with the highest payoff. Ergo, as long as man continues to fear the loss of his own safety, he will continue to cooperate.
Well, at least that’s my take on it.
Source Articles:
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/axelrod.html
https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/socialcont.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/prisoner-s-dilemma-has-unexpected-applications.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=1#h[]
http://www.businessinsider.com/prisoners-dilemma-in-real-life-2013-7