Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I had this same idea like 10 years ago.
>> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1899#comic
> 
>   I didn't quite get it.

I'm assuming you understand the prisoner's dilemma.

The question is how to get people to cooperate in the face of it. (Where 
"cooperate" is the technical term for "remain silent" in the example, while 
"cheating" is the opposite.)

One way (which governments seem to take) is to increase punishments for 
people getting caught cheating to where the reward from cheating is offset 
by the greater punishment for getting caught. Hence, writing a bad check is 
punished with a much higher fine than simply the cost of the check, so that 
on average writing bad checks after getting the goods in return is a losing 
proposition.

Another way (which religions often take) is to increase the reward for 
cooperation. One helps one's fellow men because even tho there's a 
short-term loss of money when you donate to charity, there's a much greater 
reward (eternal paradise) for being such a good person. (Of course, various 
earthly entities associated with religion tend to corrupt this, if the 
religion even worked this way to start with.)

So, in other words, you can avoid the prisoner's dilemma by making square D 
say "both get six months in jail and an eternity of paradise after death", 
or you canmake square A and B and C be "both get short sentences, but then 
get murdered by other mobsters as a lesson to squealers everywhere." Either 
of those will break the dilemma.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message