I'm very glad that this video connected the prisoner's dilemma to the tragedy of the commons. I've always noticed that the two are both forms of the same problem, but I haven't seen anyone else acknowledge this.
Excellent lesson! I had never had this problem explained to me with such clarity. I thought I understood it before, and it turns out I didn't. But I understand it now. Thank you very much for sharing this! :)
So, be trustworthy to the point where it becomes a seemingly predictable part of your character, surround yourself with gullible but otherwise capable people, and change course only when the stakes reach a point at which you capitalize on the reputation you've build for yourself. Also incapacitate betrayed parties to avoid loss of reputation. Gotcha.
The truth is the world isn't perfect. If everyone cooperates then this world would be at it's best. But the problem is not everyone will cooperate. So you've to cooperate tactfully and only experience can tell you when to cooperate or not.
If there is a virulent, mildy deadly pandemic, and the best course of actions to do would be to act in a calm, logical manner, acting almost as you had before but with more caution in your personal hygiene and courtesy, then all will turn out well, which you do. Later, you watch as everyone around you buys everything they can, emptying shelves of wares, driving the prices of said wares up, leaving nothing behind for you neighbors who also assumed that people would rely on their better nature, and thus kicking off a cycle of tragedy. The panicking masses take almost everything, leaving the more rational to do so in order to avoid future shortages, and those who can do neither starve.
" But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me."
Unless you are the type of friend who has the poison and chooses not to poison EITHER but simply smile at your friend who has poisoned their cup and politely say, "You first."
Prisoner's Dilemma is not an instructive model for free-market interactions (or even for interactions in the mixed economy that we live in today) for a couple of reasons: 1) In real life, a big part of people's genuine, long-term self-interest is earning rewards by producing or creating valuable things. Self-interest is not merely a matter of cooperating or not cooperating to avoid punishments meted out by some authority. If people fail to enact the conditions that allow for the reliable creation and trade of wealth, it is a predictable and detrimental (non-self-interested) outcome that will result. 2) In real life, rational self-interest includes supporting a government that punishes fraud and enforces contracts. When you take into account the option of honestly producing and trading wealth in pursuing your long-term self-interest, the option of committing fraud, arbitrarily violating contracts, or committing criminal acts is seen to be very much inferior: You expend effort without creating value and turn all other people (including the government) into enemies, if your deception is ever figured out. Whether other people figure out your deception is mostly out of your control, thus putting your own life out of your control in ways it wouldn't be otherwise. You turn from a reliable method of obtaining goods to one that diminishes your productivity and threatens to wipe out your freedom more and more, the more you practice it. (As with Bernie Madoff.) In regard to the Tragedy of the Commons, the solution is to *have no commons*. Even volumes of air and water can be considered property, just with the recognition that damage to this property can be done in ways that don't apply to other forms of property. If a person owns a section of lakebed and the water above it, then if someone pollutes the lake in a way that provably damages his use of that volume, he can sue for property damage (tort.) Similarly for air: if someone puts out fumes that affect the air over one's property in such a way as to provably damage his health, comfort, or other use of his property, he could sue. I discuss this solution to the Tragedy of the Commons in more detail here: objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/laissez-faire-capitalism-solves-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-and-deals-with-negative-externalities-a-dialogue/.
If the nukes have already been fired there's no point retaliating. You obviously say you will absolutely fire them up until the enemy launches, but at that point it's option D whatever you do. At least with no retaliation there's some chance for optimism: The enemy might abort the warheads, They will probably help the survivors. A functioning state will still exist which avoids a mad-max scenario.
I always find myself on the 15 years side because my heart is too kind and allow people to take from me... I am frustrated with myself but I just really dislike being selfish.
That single handedly show emotion fully is not negative for rationality in long term. The only way of deciding a certain action is based on necessity of presume ideas of environments that emotion makes it available.
Just a note that rationality in AI is defined as acting according to a specific objective function. In practice, this means that your actions indeed help you achieve your goals and priorities. It is not irrational to rat on the other, as many of you mentioned, because your ultimate priority is to get as few years jail time as possible. Of course it is not that simple because the outcome is probabilistic, but still, it is not irrational if for example you trust the other person not to rat on you. Rationality has nothing to do with the common good. Unless of course your 'objective function' actually specifies that common good is your priority.
I think he means that it is not a matter of selfishness, because selfishness is only the case in the specific examples. The more general problem is satisfying different preferences among agents. For example, in other scenarios, the preferred outcome could even be altruistic, or whatever else, but similar problems would arise due to uncertainty about the behavior of the others.
A big part of it is trust not selfishness. A lot of the time people are happy to do the right thing but if it’s obvious that others won’t or you believe others won’t then you are much worse off if you don’t also choose yourself. I don’t necessarily think that it’s selfish to not want to be a sacrificial lamb.
Does this mean that we should all resort to outcome B? Assuming that your partner can be trusted and trusts you, can you both reach the conclusion to end the circle thinking and resort to outcome B? I think this all depends on trust and the rational thinking of both you and your partner.
It is interesting watching two groups isolated in different rooms grapple with this. The discussions in the two rooms I observed discussed what they should do for a long while.
It's funny how with the prisoner dilemma's "solution" is to make the consequences of snitching worse than taking the 3 years. We actually see something very similar in the real world in Mafias where there is zero tolerance for snitching and the consequences are usually bloody
Incredibly well-crafted piece; akin to a book that offered a similarly comprehensive analysis. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
I participated in such "experiments" (like the 10-20-30 oil price exercise). Once trust was broken, both opposing parties ended up in the crapper. In later negotiations, both were afraid to trust and, time and again, they were back in the crapper. Fortunately, me and my opponent started off curbing our greed and trust grew. We ended up in the upper right "prosperity" quadrant, while others spun into the lower left quad (the crapper) and couldn't get out for the rest of the exercise no matter how they cajoled each other. Hopefully the U.S. can pull out of the "distrust" hole that we've dug during the last four years.
If you are stupid, you will rat the other guy without thinking about his possible decision. If you are "an average guy", you will not rat the other guy, if you don't think about the other guy's possible decision. If you are clever, you would think this all through, identify that other guy and do what your moral accepts you to do. If you are an genius, you would not get caught.
There was a gameshow based on this concept. It was shit, but I always found it cool. Basically, if you "rat the other person out," and she stays quiet, then you keep all the money; if you both rat out, then you both get nothing; if you both stay silent you each take half.
+Kanjoos ‘ProJared 2’ Lahookvinhaakvinhookvin It was not a Prisoner's Dilemma, though, because if the other was going to betray you, it didn't matter what you would choose - you would get nothing anyway. It was more like a special kind of Hawk-Dove dilemma, with Hawk being weakly dominant.
Huh I didn’t know it was this deep. Who knew a video game - Zero Escape: Virtues Last Reward - will take such an interesting thought in adopt it so well in its core game.
Very eloquently explained. I do tend to disagree with you in that selfishness does play a part here. Let us not forget the economic work conducted by Adam Smith. Also would you be able to upload your interpretation of Newcomb's Problem? It is one of my favourite thought/rationality problems. Thank you in advance.
I enjoyed this 🧐It really depends on what my relationship is with Isobel, do I know her well enough to second guess her response to the jail sentence? This is like a question of 'are you a team player or a go solo'. All stick to the rules for a FAIR outcome, or sneak a bit more for yourself?
There is a flaw in this understanding. You don't count on environment pressure be it by time or rules. If by any means said prisoner need to look after his dad which is on its dead bed there will be a shift in this dilemma. He truly need to be out for 0 year. Then what will happen? He will arrange a new environment where he will be the winner either by threatening the other prisoner life or family. There is more there is a neglect that the detective need the fastest and possible outcome for them and not for the prisonner. Therefore they can lie about the other ratting and pull the trigger of each ratting at each other at the end to lower theirs sentences. What we learn here is that time frame and environment is the key that change the tide of this dilemma.
I don’t think that is a flaw. It’s a basic example intentionally for the purpose of a thought experiment. Obviously the real world is more complex and each case is different. That’s not the point though. The point is to show that generally, when we all work together everybody wins but there’s an incentive to choose yourself because you can’t trust that everybody else won’t do the same which could end up with you being a lot worse off.
Joseph Heavner I dont see it as extreme. I guess most people have a hard time accepting selfishness. if you wish to stop world hunger, then that is your wish and you try to achieve it out of selfishness.
It IS inherently about selfishness though. It's being presented entirely from the perspective of personal, individual gain. This is exactly the definition of selfishness - a focus on the good of self. The solution is selflessness - the focus on the good of others and forgoing your own good. Think of it the opposite direction. If my goal is to better the outcome of the other party, then I can ALWAYS do that by cooperating. I have to be willing to face 15 years in prison and be satisfied with that outcome if it means that I have done a great service by allowing my partner to go free. A step further is the concept of love. Love is like selflessness except that instead of focusing on the good of others instead of yourself, the good of others becomes equal to the good of yourself. I would count it gain for you to escape those three years in prison as if I were the one escaping three years in prison. He said it's a mistake to point to the problem being selfishness, but didn't explain in any way why that was a mistake. He just did some hand-waving and discussed the problem more generally.
In his final example, he explains how even if the result is completely arbitrary in relation to gains of any individual player, each player cannot trust the other to pick the correct thing, since the other option would be better both ways if the other player thought the same way the first player does and picks the bad way It's basically a vicious cycle just watch the video
It's a vicious cycle if you think only about yourself . If you think about the group as a whole, the best thing to do is to not talk : If you doesn't talk and the other don't too : the group take 6 years If you doesn't talk and the other do : the group take 15 years If you talk and the other do : the group take 20 years. So, no, the dilemma is all about selfishness. If you think only about yourself, it's better to talk, because it's give YOU the best two outcomes possible whatever the choice of the other person. If you think about the group as a whole, it's better to not talk, because it give to THE GROUP the best two possible outcomes.
The problem doesn't pertain to selfishness nearly as much as it pertains to dishonesty and the inability to trust. Or the absence of loyalty. Even in the very first example, the prisoners don't simply choose what appears to be selfish out of personal gain. They choose the option than benefits them the most because they can not rely on the cooperation of all other parties. And if you can not rely on the cooperation of all other parties, you're making the least of your personal involvement by being the only party holding yourself to the agreement. For the prisoners, for example, they would both rather recieve 3 years. However, KNOWING that the other has the option of 0 years by placing blame on you, and KNOWING that 0 < 3, if you can not trust the person you're making the worse possible choice by taking 15 years when the alternative option is 10 years. It has SOME relevance to selfishness but the problem isn't inherently rooted in selfishness. It's rooted in trust for in all of these cases a union would yield the optimal gain for all parties involved with the stakes being that a lack of unity reduces potential yield.
what does he mean by saying that if they are effective reasons they shift the costs and benefits away from years in jail in ways that you are not in a prisoner's dillema 8:50 - 8-55? how do they shift the costs and benefits? and how does he prove that it's not selfishness after all?
Hey it's a very nice video Professor. I do not quite get the A, B, C, D order in the last part. Viewing the prisoner it would be the best for me to defect (if my partner cooperates), hence D (and A for my partner); after that if we both cooperate, hence C; then if we both defect, hence B; and after this if I cooperate and my partner defects, hence A (and D for my partner). So i just guess you mixed B and C up in there? So defecting: D or B, cooperating: C or A; what still brings us to the conclusion, that one do better by defecting in general.
It's to me making no sense because all that led to you being in jail is important you can't make rational decision when all else depends not only you. It doesn't matter what you think is reasonable. You see if in place there are laws and right interest and focus on right things then you can avoid dilemas all together
Proactive life being rational if you live among irrational people then it matter snot often what you Do. That's why if say you need to care about even those people you dislike. Based on science.
Amazing presentation! Favorited this talk but I didn't quite understand after 9:00 and A, B, C, D. Is there another way to explain how selfishness explaining the prisoners dilemma is off the mark? Is the problem that there are certain things that are better than others and because they are better it creates this dilemma?
Selfishness doesn't always explain the dilemma because of 1) Fear and 2) Trust. Staying silent would theoretically result in the best outcome but that decision leaves you vulnerable. So abandoning that option is often a result of fear that the other person will take advantage of your vulnerability. In that case, you can see that even a selfless individual could rat.
to me, selfishness can be used to explain the dilemma in these situations, but the real point is that EVEN IF WE ARE TRYING TO BE SELFISH, in a group of rational people, we should still cooperate, at least in a one time situation. Look up superrationality.
a second (and better) way to look at it is that the point and design of prisoner's dilemma IS an individual problem. It's what you should do to maximize your own situation. The whole point is to ignore outward concerns like real-world consequences, like that other people might see you as selfish. Now if you want to be non-selfish for pure reasons other than how you're seen by others, that's great, but you can ignore that too here since it's also an outward concern (out of the realm of maximizing your situation)
The first analogy is flawed because even if both of you confess they can’t convict solely on a confession. It must be corroborated by evidence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and therefore it doesn’t matter who confesses and “rats” the other out. The evidence would have to point to that fact and you’ve even stipulated that there is no evidence linking either of them to the heist
+Banana Manchester Well, that would solve that particular situation, but not the paradox as a whole. The paradox only applies if you care about your own well being more than you do the other person's. Thus, if you care more about Isabella than yourself, you haven't solved a paradox, there just isn't a paradox in the first place.
+William Gelfand the paradox, from what I can see, seems to be that while you objectively the best decision is staying quiet, you are also better off ratting out Isobel. The paradox hinges on both parties being rational and self interested as you say. The paradoxical statement is therefore, "I would be better off telling on Isobel" because in these circumstances it is both true and false at the same time
I can't stand fake hand drawn animations. Either do it or don't. I don't care which, but it's pointless to put the hand in if no one is actually drawing it.
+Nathanael Regner It's in the Sovereign's best interest to govern peaceably. If the Sovereign angers its subjects for no purpose then they're liable to revolt.
It's also contrary to Hobbes' argument against the Foole. The Foole seeks advantage wherever she might find it. The Sovereign who oppresses quietly, for its own sake, is doing basically the same thing with respect to the Commonwealth.
Joel Gawne I was like 9 when I did that part for the first time. I didn't understand what the hell had just been described to me, so I just chose the option where I said that Zaalbar was my friend, lol. It was clever of the devs to put this in the game, though. It does a good job showing the fundamental differences between Jedi and Sith imo.
That's why you figure out who the betrayer is with small things so that when you get to the prisoner's dilemma you know what they will pick. Always betray a rat
Nope, In summary people are better off working together, but have strong incentives to be the only one cheating the system. And given the continued existence of the human race, I'd wager that people have chosen the metaphorical "keep quiet" option a statistically significant amount of the time. We don't all need to be selfless people, just enough of us.
So what Dafuq does the issue of a corrupt system have to do with sharing resources?? 😑 Can’t this be a question about victims of circumstance and abuse of power??
+xavian brightly not really, the countries are still being selfish. They are trying to maximize their outcome, and the dilema emerges because they have different outcomes. If they were both trying to maximize the sum of the outcomes there would be no dilema
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Truth and Validity [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pCGnyaa5E5g/mqdefault.jpg)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Truth and Validity [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - Kant: On Metaphysical Knowledge [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vZtQXteAE-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent, clear explanation. With bonus real-life examples and connections to other ideas. Thanks!
I'm very glad that this video connected the prisoner's dilemma to the tragedy of the commons. I've always noticed that the two are both forms of the same problem, but I haven't seen anyone else acknowledge this.
Excellent lesson! I had never had this problem explained to me with such clarity. I thought I understood it before, and it turns out I didn't. But I understand it now. Thank you very much for sharing this! :)
So, be trustworthy to the point where it becomes a seemingly predictable part of your character, surround yourself with gullible but otherwise capable people, and change course only when the stakes reach a point at which you capitalize on the reputation you've build for yourself. Also incapacitate betrayed parties to avoid loss of reputation. Gotcha.
The truth is the world isn't perfect. If everyone cooperates then this world would be at it's best. But the problem is not everyone will cooperate. So you've to cooperate tactfully and only experience can tell you when to cooperate or not.
If there is a virulent, mildy deadly pandemic, and the best course of actions to do would be to act in a calm, logical manner, acting almost as you had before but with more caution in your personal hygiene and courtesy, then all will turn out well, which you do. Later, you watch as everyone around you buys everything they can, emptying shelves of wares, driving the prices of said wares up, leaving nothing behind for you neighbors who also assumed that people would rely on their better nature, and thus kicking off a cycle of tragedy. The panicking masses take almost everything, leaving the more rational to do so in order to avoid future shortages, and those who can do neither starve.
" But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me."
What's that over there?!
"You're stalling."
Unless you are the type of friend who has the poison and chooses not to poison EITHER but simply smile at your friend who has poisoned their cup and politely say, "You first."
The pirncess bride
Prisoner's Dilemma is not an instructive model for free-market interactions (or even for interactions in the mixed economy that we live in today) for a couple of reasons: 1) In real life, a big part of people's genuine, long-term self-interest is earning rewards by producing or creating valuable things. Self-interest is not merely a matter of cooperating or not cooperating to avoid punishments meted out by some authority. If people fail to enact the conditions that allow for the reliable creation and trade of wealth, it is a predictable and detrimental (non-self-interested) outcome that will result.
2) In real life, rational self-interest includes supporting a government that punishes fraud and enforces contracts. When you take into account the option of honestly producing and trading wealth in pursuing your long-term self-interest, the option of committing fraud, arbitrarily violating contracts, or committing criminal acts is seen to be very much inferior: You expend effort without creating value and turn all other people (including the government) into enemies, if your deception is ever figured out. Whether other people figure out your deception is mostly out of your control, thus putting your own life out of your control in ways it wouldn't be otherwise. You turn from a reliable method of obtaining goods to one that diminishes your productivity and threatens to wipe out your freedom more and more, the more you practice it. (As with Bernie Madoff.)
In regard to the Tragedy of the Commons, the solution is to *have no commons*. Even volumes of air and water can be considered property, just with the recognition that damage to this property can be done in ways that don't apply to other forms of property. If a person owns a section of lakebed and the water above it, then if someone pollutes the lake in a way that provably damages his use of that volume, he can sue for property damage (tort.) Similarly for air: if someone puts out fumes that affect the air over one's property in such a way as to provably damage his health, comfort, or other use of his property, he could sue. I discuss this solution to the Tragedy of the Commons in more detail here: objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/laissez-faire-capitalism-solves-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-and-deals-with-negative-externalities-a-dialogue/.
This is kind of the problem with nukes
Except a country noticed when a nuke is fired.
Schwarzer Ritter yeah, but still by then it's too late, you can either destroy them too or be destroyed alone
If the nukes have already been fired there's no point retaliating. You obviously say you will absolutely fire them up until the enemy launches, but at that point it's option D whatever you do. At least with no retaliation there's some chance for optimism:
The enemy might abort the warheads,
They will probably help the survivors.
A functioning state will still exist which avoids a mad-max scenario.
+Korona that's just what governments tend to say they'll do
+Korona if there's the threat of retaliation countries are less likely to fire
I always find myself on the 15 years side because my heart is too kind and allow people to take from me... I am frustrated with myself but I just really dislike being selfish.
That single handedly show emotion fully is not negative for rationality in long term. The only way of deciding a certain action is based on necessity of presume ideas of environments that emotion makes it available.
Just a note that rationality in AI is defined as acting according to a specific objective function. In practice, this means that your actions indeed help you achieve your goals and priorities. It is not irrational to rat on the other, as many of you mentioned, because your ultimate priority is to get as few years jail time as possible. Of course it is not that simple because the outcome is probabilistic, but still, it is not irrational if for example you trust the other person not to rat on you. Rationality has nothing to do with the common good. Unless of course your 'objective function' actually specifies that common good is your priority.
This is a terrific explanation. "World 101"
I didn't understand how selfishness is not the fundamental problem here. Can anyone explain that to me?
I think he means that it is not a matter of selfishness, because selfishness is only the case in the specific examples. The more general problem is satisfying different preferences among agents. For example, in other scenarios, the preferred outcome could even be altruistic, or whatever else, but similar problems would arise due to uncertainty about the behavior of the others.
A big part of it is trust not selfishness. A lot of the time people are happy to do the right thing but if it’s obvious that others won’t or you believe others won’t then you are much worse off if you don’t also choose yourself. I don’t necessarily think that it’s selfish to not want to be a sacrificial lamb.
Does this mean that we should all resort to outcome B? Assuming that your partner can be trusted and trusts you, can you both reach the conclusion to end the circle thinking and resort to outcome B? I think this all depends on trust and the rational thinking of both you and your partner.
It is interesting watching two groups isolated in different rooms grapple with this. The discussions in the two rooms I observed discussed what they should do for a long while.
The moral is that you can never ever trust anyone. Ever.
It's funny how with the prisoner dilemma's "solution" is to make the consequences of snitching worse than taking the 3 years. We actually see something very similar in the real world in Mafias where there is zero tolerance for snitching and the consequences are usually bloody
and THAT'S why I CLEARLY can't choose the wine in front of you!
I thought of this as soon as the video started!
To good.
It's actually why you simply refuse the drink!
My brain just exploded.
Sounds very similar to the scene with the boats and prisoners in the Dark Knight
Incredibly well-crafted piece; akin to a book that offered a similarly comprehensive analysis. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
I participated in such "experiments" (like the 10-20-30 oil price exercise). Once trust was broken, both opposing parties ended up in the crapper. In later negotiations, both were afraid to trust and, time and again, they were back in the crapper. Fortunately, me and my opponent started off curbing our greed and trust grew. We ended up in the upper right "prosperity" quadrant, while others spun into the lower left quad (the crapper) and couldn't get out for the rest of the exercise no matter how they cajoled each other. Hopefully the U.S. can pull out of the "distrust" hole that we've dug during the last four years.
If you are stupid, you will rat the other guy without thinking about his possible decision.
If you are "an average guy", you will not rat the other guy, if you don't think about the other guy's possible decision.
If you are clever, you would think this all through, identify that other guy and do what your moral accepts you to do.
If you are an genius, you would not get caught.
There was a gameshow based on this concept. It was shit, but I always found it cool. Basically, if you "rat the other person out," and she stays quiet, then you keep all the money; if you both rat out, then you both get nothing; if you both stay silent you each take half.
+Kanjoos Lahookvinhaakvinhookvin (ProJared 2) what's its name?
+Kanjoos Lahookvinhaakvinhookvin (ProJared 2) what's its name?
Felipe A. Barretto I think Friend or Foe.
+Kanjoos ‘ProJared 2’ Lahookvinhaakvinhookvin It was not a Prisoner's Dilemma, though, because if the other was going to betray you, it didn't matter what you would choose - you would get nothing anyway. It was more like a special kind of Hawk-Dove dilemma, with Hawk being weakly dominant.
+Kanjoos “ProJared 2” Lahookvinhaakvinhookvin Golden balls had a similar layout maybe that?
Huh I didn’t know it was this deep. Who knew a video game - Zero Escape: Virtues Last Reward - will take such an interesting thought in adopt it so well in its core game.
Virtue's Last Reward
+Harrison Largen perfect
That was exactly the first thing that occurred to me :D.
This reminds me of the "State of Nature" wich Hobbs discribed, where everybody is at constant War.
Which tool you have used to compose this video ?
So I'll get 3 years for parole violation, 15 years for robbery (not sure if the parole violation is included,) or 10 years for..... what exactly?
Thank you for creating.
Individualism vs collectivism
Very eloquently explained. I do tend to disagree with you in that selfishness does play a part here. Let us not forget the economic work conducted by Adam Smith.
Also would you be able to upload your interpretation of Newcomb's Problem? It is one of my favourite thought/rationality problems.
Thank you in advance.
"Rat" on eachother?
Couldn't you use a more scientific technical term - like "snitch"?
I love the fact North Carolina is doing this.
I enjoyed this 🧐It really depends on what my relationship is with Isobel, do I know her well enough to second guess her response to the jail sentence? This is like a question of 'are you a team player or a go solo'. All stick to the rules for a FAIR outcome, or sneak a bit more for yourself?
There is a flaw in this understanding. You don't count on environment pressure be it by time or rules. If by any means said prisoner need to look after his dad which is on its dead bed there will be a shift in this dilemma. He truly need to be out for 0 year. Then what will happen? He will arrange a new environment where he will be the winner either by threatening the other prisoner life or family. There is more there is a neglect that the detective need the fastest and possible outcome for them and not for the prisonner. Therefore they can lie about the other ratting and pull the trigger of each ratting at each other at the end to lower theirs sentences.
What we learn here is that time frame and environment is the key that change the tide of this dilemma.
I don’t think that is a flaw. It’s a basic example intentionally for the purpose of a thought experiment. Obviously the real world is more complex and each case is different. That’s not the point though. The point is to show that generally, when we all work together everybody wins but there’s an incentive to choose yourself because you can’t trust that everybody else won’t do the same which could end up with you being a lot worse off.
Very nice explanation, thanxx, I'll save it to watch it again.
Make the rules, convince everyone to follow them, and do what you want ;)
-Don't worry chuck, I'll remain silent.
-Oh believe me isabella, I'm pretty sure of that... (gun charging)
enlighten me: how is this not about selfishness (considering you understand this dynamic and you know the opposing party has the ability to know it)?
+Joseph Heavner why do they say that if both cooperates you get B tho? edit: why not A?
Joseph Heavner thats a terrible attempt at making me understand it.
Joseph Heavner yes, you have said that. example?
Joseph Heavner I dont see it as extreme. I guess most people have a hard time accepting selfishness. if you wish to stop world hunger, then that is your wish and you try to achieve it out of selfishness.
Id like to see a follow up on this with the implications of using the 'tit for tat' moral philosophy. :)
I dislike how repetitive the script was.- that being said still a cool concept!
It's easy to get lost, the professor just wanted us to understand completely
It IS inherently about selfishness though. It's being presented entirely from the perspective of personal, individual gain. This is exactly the definition of selfishness - a focus on the good of self. The solution is selflessness - the focus on the good of others and forgoing your own good. Think of it the opposite direction. If my goal is to better the outcome of the other party, then I can ALWAYS do that by cooperating. I have to be willing to face 15 years in prison and be satisfied with that outcome if it means that I have done a great service by allowing my partner to go free. A step further is the concept of love. Love is like selflessness except that instead of focusing on the good of others instead of yourself, the good of others becomes equal to the good of yourself. I would count it gain for you to escape those three years in prison as if I were the one escaping three years in prison.
He said it's a mistake to point to the problem being selfishness, but didn't explain in any way why that was a mistake. He just did some hand-waving and discussed the problem more generally.
In his final example, he explains how even if the result is completely arbitrary in relation to gains of any individual player, each player cannot trust the other to pick the correct thing, since the other option would be better both ways if the other player thought the same way the first player does and picks the bad way
It's basically a vicious cycle just watch the video
It's a vicious cycle if you think only about yourself .
If you think about the group as a whole, the best thing to do is to not talk :
If you doesn't talk and the other don't too : the group take 6 years
If you doesn't talk and the other do : the group take 15 years
If you talk and the other do : the group take 20 years.
So, no, the dilemma is all about selfishness.
If you think only about yourself, it's better to talk, because it's give YOU the best two outcomes possible whatever the choice of the other person.
If you think about the group as a whole, it's better to not talk, because it give to THE GROUP the best two possible outcomes.
^^ my point exactly, well said.
The problem doesn't pertain to selfishness nearly as much as it pertains to dishonesty and the inability to trust. Or the absence of loyalty. Even in the very first example, the prisoners don't simply choose what appears to be selfish out of personal gain. They choose the option than benefits them the most because they can not rely on the cooperation of all other parties. And if you can not rely on the cooperation of all other parties, you're making the least of your personal involvement by being the only party holding yourself to the agreement.
For the prisoners, for example, they would both rather recieve 3 years. However, KNOWING that the other has the option of 0 years by placing blame on you, and KNOWING that 0 < 3, if you can not trust the person you're making the worse possible choice by taking 15 years when the alternative option is 10 years.
It has SOME relevance to selfishness but the problem isn't inherently rooted in selfishness. It's rooted in trust for in all of these cases a union would yield the optimal gain for all parties involved with the stakes being that a lack of unity reduces potential yield.
+Gerald Wiseman edit: they choose the option that* benefits...
what does he mean by saying that if they are effective reasons they shift the costs and benefits away from years in jail in ways that you are not in a prisoner's dillema 8:50 - 8-55? how do they shift the costs and benefits? and how does he prove that it's not selfishness after all?
Hey it's a very nice video Professor. I do not quite get the A, B, C, D order in the last part. Viewing the prisoner it would be the best for me to defect (if my partner cooperates), hence D (and A for my partner); after that if we both cooperate, hence C; then if we both defect, hence B; and after this if I cooperate and my partner defects, hence A (and D for my partner). So i just guess you mixed B and C up in there? So defecting: D or B, cooperating: C or A; what still brings us to the conclusion, that one do better by defecting in general.
I think you clearly miss the point on this dilemma. But nevermind.
anybody else think "what would Revan do ?"
Why would a rational person pull a diamond heist while on parole?
ORuskettle the real question here
Slightly long-winded, but extremely good concept to know. Altruism and morality will develop using these philosophical dilemmas.
+CyberCheese It was long-winded and I think most people will know about it already
I need to stop subbing to these channels, I'm learning something!
Is the photo of Mr. Sayre-McCord taken in Amsterdam?
It's to me making no sense because all that led to you being in jail is important you can't make rational decision when all else depends not only you. It doesn't matter what you think is reasonable. You see if in place there are laws and right interest and focus on right things then you can avoid dilemas all together
Proactive life being rational if you live among irrational people then it matter snot often what you Do. That's why if say you need to care about even those people you dislike. Based on science.
Amazing presentation! Favorited this talk but I didn't quite understand after 9:00 and A, B, C, D. Is there another way to explain how selfishness explaining the prisoners dilemma is off the mark? Is the problem that there are certain things that are better than others and because they are better it creates this dilemma?
Selfishness doesn't always explain the dilemma because of 1) Fear and 2) Trust. Staying silent would theoretically result in the best outcome but that decision leaves you vulnerable. So abandoning that option is often a result of fear that the other person will take advantage of your vulnerability. In that case, you can see that even a selfless individual could rat.
to me, selfishness can be used to explain the dilemma in these situations, but the real point is that EVEN IF WE ARE TRYING TO BE SELFISH, in a group of rational people, we should still cooperate, at least in a one time situation. Look up superrationality.
a second (and better) way to look at it is that the point and design of prisoner's dilemma IS an individual problem. It's what you should do to maximize your own situation.
The whole point is to ignore outward concerns like real-world consequences, like that other people might see you as selfish.
Now if you want to be non-selfish for pure reasons other than how you're seen by others, that's great, but you can ignore that too here since it's also an outward concern (out of the realm of maximizing your situation)
The premise is wrong. Why would you both get 10 if you rat on each other? What's the logic behind it? If you're both guilty you get 3, so why 10?
enter.the.void.II they were getting 3 for violating parole not stealing diamonds.
The first analogy is flawed because even if both of you confess they can’t convict solely on a confession. It must be corroborated by evidence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and therefore it doesn’t matter who confesses and “rats” the other out. The evidence would have to point to that fact and you’ve even stipulated that there is no evidence linking either of them to the heist
No, this all relies on the theory that we are all selfish, feel no compassion and don’t care about others
Good comment. I agree. How well do you know or trust this 'Isobel'? 🤔😃
In other words, human beings love to gamble.
What if I cared more about Isabellas welfare than my own? thus choosing to remain silent, despite her actions, to allow her to save herself?
+Banana Manchester Well, that would solve that particular situation, but not the paradox as a whole. The paradox only applies if you care about your own well being more than you do the other person's. Thus, if you care more about Isabella than yourself, you haven't solved a paradox, there just isn't a paradox in the first place.
+ShapedSilver good point! :)
+William Gelfand can you elaborate on that point?
+William Gelfand the paradox, from what I can see, seems to be that while you objectively the best decision is staying quiet, you are also better off ratting out Isobel. The paradox hinges on both parties being rational and self interested as you say. The paradoxical statement is therefore, "I would be better off telling on Isobel" because in these circumstances it is both true and false at the same time
I can't stand fake hand drawn animations. Either do it or don't. I don't care which, but it's pointless to put the hand in if no one is actually drawing it.
I just kept thinking of A Princess Bride while I watched this video--Iocaine Powder.
To achieve that you must know the Golden rule
I gess this explains all the robberies.
Brilliant! Thank you very much!
Thnx for the knowledge homeslice. Free* is the best price. Will drop a like.
The danger of Hobb's thought is that if the Leviathan decided to use its power for its own benefit than there's no stopping it.
+Nathanael Regner It's in the Sovereign's best interest to govern peaceably. If the Sovereign angers its subjects for no purpose then they're liable to revolt.
Catfactory True. But what if the sovereign opresses the discreetly? That's one of the dangers.
It's also contrary to Hobbes' argument against the Foole. The Foole seeks advantage wherever she might find it. The Sovereign who oppresses quietly, for its own sake, is doing basically the same thing with respect to the Commonwealth.
Great vids.
Is this guy Piero from Dishonoured?
Awesome video!
0.48 i will make them an offer that they can not refuse.
khirchri..btw well explained. thanks for the efforts
Or just dont commit robbery with your friends
Anyone here play Knights of the Old Republic?
me
Joel Gawne Do you remember getting this dilemma on Kashyyyk?
totally. Was completely stumped for half an hour. Didn't know wtf to do
Joel Gawne I was like 9 when I did that part for the first time. I didn't understand what the hell had just been described to me, so I just chose the option where I said that Zaalbar was my friend, lol. It was clever of the devs to put this in the game, though. It does a good job showing the fundamental differences between Jedi and Sith imo.
I didn't play that game but I'm a huge star wars fan and that scene really seems interesting.
12 easy years in prison off loyalty.
State or federal time? 6 years off good behavior.
Re-open the case regardless.
I think he just accidentally proved the case for God.
flaw in the story is that the detective has no hard evidence so all you need to do is shut up and both will get zero
Thanks!
or if you really don't trust her just say you both did it so at least you're both in jail for the same amount
What kind of criminal did not talk about what will happen in an investigation before doing the act?
It was meant as a sarcastic statement. =)
Sounds like a problem of intemperance to me.
That's why you figure out who the betrayer is with small things so that when you get to the prisoner's dilemma you know what they will pick. Always betray a rat
some people betray when things are small and dont when they are big. Some do the opposite
The Dark Knight, anyone?
UNC Chapel Hill 💜💜
in reality if they don't talk their is no crime/time.
I miss north Carolina
or just turn yourself in and take the 3 years
Human greed is our eternal dilemma.
That's definitely how I decide to rat out my P.I.C., mathematically.
why does he assume we're all men
Privatize everything.
Solution is easy. You have to kill your partner after the heist.
+N.M. H The Joker did it smoothly in The Dark Knight
+purplecracka I was just about to say that
So in summary, people are crap
Nope, In summary people are better off working together, but have strong incentives to be the only one cheating the system. And given the continued existence of the human race, I'd wager that people have chosen the metaphorical "keep quiet" option a statistically significant amount of the time.
We don't all need to be selfless people, just enough of us.
its a never ending cycle lol
just don't rob diamonds then ;)
this is definitely math but with social context
So what Dafuq does the issue of a corrupt system have to do with sharing resources?? 😑 Can’t this be a question about victims of circumstance and abuse of power??
This is the Dilemma my girlfriend and I go through every time we try to order take out.
Ok, I understand why you did it now Isabella. I forgive you. Let's meet at the old hideout. Bring the diamonds. And a shovel.
in other words humans are selfish
did you watch the whole video because they explain why your conclusion is wrong.
+xavian brightly not really, the countries are still being selfish. They are trying to maximize their outcome, and the dilema emerges because they have different outcomes. If they were both trying to maximize the sum of the outcomes there would be no dilema
This mindfucked me
i hate life
omerta
Mafia solved prisoners dilemma, is called omerta