Essays on collectivity - 2 - The prisoner's dillema
March 23rd 2007 13:00
And so it says:
There were two prisoners in a prison somewhere. Both of them wanted to scape, and they made up a plan. Unfortunetly they were discovered by the jail guards, who putted them in separate rooms and asked them who was making the plan to scape.
If one prisoneer betrayed the other, he would spend one year more to be free (if the other didn't batrayed him either) and in this case the other would spend more 4 years in prison... If both were faithfull to the other, they would spend more 2 years each in jail. But if the 2 betrayed each other they would spend both more 3 years in jail. Notice that each one had no access to the other's answer before giving his.
Being pragmatic, the best solution in this case is: betray the other. Considering you have a 50/50 chance of being faithfull or betraying fro both sides: if the other cooperates, you spend less time in jail betraying him, and if he betrays you, you spend less time in jail betrying him too. Thus, you betray.
Notice an important thing: this is a one time test. We don't count on different facts that happened in time, which would influence the decision of both.
Getting back to our collectivities, this applies perfectly to Smith's consideration. Doing the best for each one maximises for each one the benefits. Hehe, for each one.
And that's the thing that he got wrong, and it was only in the 20th century that american mathematician John Nash prooved Smith was wrong (but using an idea that was acctually showed first by french mathematicien Antoine Cournot). The Cournot/Nash problem i'll leave to americans and french to discuss, i'm more interested in the idea...
The problem Cournot/Nash showed is that, in Smith's way of thinking, we don't take time into account (seems just like some cases in philosophy..) and thus in reality it is not like this that we decide. The best way that represents the maximum benefit for all is when you optimize the benefits for all AND for each one.
That fits perfecly in our ideas on ethics. The "grand style élargie" is, philosophically speaking, a root argument form which we can find this.
But for the moment, i'll leave you thinking about the prisoners dillema and will get back to show you how this "game" is best solved when doing it on iterations (doing it more than one time between 2 players)..
Cheers! Uula
There were two prisoners in a prison somewhere. Both of them wanted to scape, and they made up a plan. Unfortunetly they were discovered by the jail guards, who putted them in separate rooms and asked them who was making the plan to scape.
If one prisoneer betrayed the other, he would spend one year more to be free (if the other didn't batrayed him either) and in this case the other would spend more 4 years in prison... If both were faithfull to the other, they would spend more 2 years each in jail. But if the 2 betrayed each other they would spend both more 3 years in jail. Notice that each one had no access to the other's answer before giving his.
Being pragmatic, the best solution in this case is: betray the other. Considering you have a 50/50 chance of being faithfull or betraying fro both sides: if the other cooperates, you spend less time in jail betraying him, and if he betrays you, you spend less time in jail betrying him too. Thus, you betray.
Notice an important thing: this is a one time test. We don't count on different facts that happened in time, which would influence the decision of both.
Getting back to our collectivities, this applies perfectly to Smith's consideration. Doing the best for each one maximises for each one the benefits. Hehe, for each one.
And that's the thing that he got wrong, and it was only in the 20th century that american mathematician John Nash prooved Smith was wrong (but using an idea that was acctually showed first by french mathematicien Antoine Cournot). The Cournot/Nash problem i'll leave to americans and french to discuss, i'm more interested in the idea...
The problem Cournot/Nash showed is that, in Smith's way of thinking, we don't take time into account (seems just like some cases in philosophy..) and thus in reality it is not like this that we decide. The best way that represents the maximum benefit for all is when you optimize the benefits for all AND for each one.
That fits perfecly in our ideas on ethics. The "grand style élargie" is, philosophically speaking, a root argument form which we can find this.
But for the moment, i'll leave you thinking about the prisoners dillema and will get back to show you how this "game" is best solved when doing it on iterations (doing it more than one time between 2 players)..
Cheers! Uula
| 58 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
