Imagine a scenario where you and your partner in crime, let’s say me, have been arrested. The police lack substantial evidence, so they separate us and offer each of us a deal: if you deny the crime and blame me, you walk free. They tell you that I’ve been given the same offer, but you have no way of knowing my decision.
Here’s the twist: if you accuse me and I stay silent, you go free while I serve three years in prison. Conversely, if I accuse you and you stay silent, you serve three years. If we both accuse each other, we each serve two years. However, if we both remain silent, we each serve one year.
This scenario is known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a concept in Game Theory, which explores strategic decision-making. The dilemma tests whether you will cooperate with the other person or act in your self-interest. In economics, this is called a simultaneous game, where your decision depends on what you anticipate the other person’s decision will be, similar to the game of rock, paper, scissors.
From a purely selfish perspective, the best outcome for an individual is to betray the other, ensuring personal freedom. However, studies show that the most common response is cooperation, where both parties stay silent, resulting in a one-year sentence each.
In reality, cooperation often occurs even when it doesn’t provide an immediate reward. Economists find the Prisoner’s Dilemma paradoxical because individually rational actions, like seeking personal freedom, lead to collectively irrational outcomes, such as increased jail time for the partner.
Consider this: if you overfish a lake for short-term gain, it harms all users in the long run. This scenario is known as the tragedy of the commons. Cooperation with others ensures better outcomes over time.
In repeated interactions, where individuals face the dilemma multiple times with the same person, the strategy of tit-for-tat becomes effective. This involves cooperating initially and then mirroring the other person’s previous action. The potential for retaliation discourages selfish behavior.
Even in nature, tit-for-tat strategies are observed. Female vampire bats share food with others that have previously helped them, demonstrating that cooperation benefits everyone over time.
Why do we choose to cooperate, even when it seems counterintuitive? Social cooperation is inherently rewarding to our brains. Studies using fMRI machines have shown that cooperation activates brain areas associated with reward processing, helping to override the temptation to act selfishly.
Further research indicates that cooperation increases the activity of dopamine neurons in the midbrain, aiding in learning who is trustworthy in reciprocating favors.
Interestingly, studies have shown that inmates are more likely to cooperate with each other than university students are with their peers. This finding challenges assumptions about social decision-making and highlights its complexity.
Reflect on your initial response to the dilemma. Would your decision change in a real-life scenario? Social decision-making involves considering others’ choices and adjusting your behavior accordingly, influenced by various factors like context.
Ultimately, predicting how much individuals are willing to sacrifice personal gains for the well-being of others remains a challenging aspect of human behavior.
Engage in a role-playing exercise where you and a partner simulate the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Take turns being the decision-maker and discuss the outcomes. Reflect on how your choices change when you know the other person’s decision versus when you don’t.
Participate in a group discussion about real-world scenarios similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, such as climate change or public goods. Analyze how cooperation or lack thereof affects outcomes and propose strategies to encourage cooperative behavior.
Use a computer simulation to explore different strategies in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Experiment with tit-for-tat and other strategies in repeated interactions. Observe how these strategies influence the overall outcome and discuss your findings with classmates.
Research a study on cooperation and present your findings to the class. Focus on the psychological and neurological aspects of cooperation, explaining why people might choose to cooperate even when it seems against their self-interest.
Write a reflective essay on your personal views about cooperation and self-interest. Consider how your understanding of the Prisoner’s Dilemma might influence your decisions in real-life situations. Discuss any changes in perspective after learning about the dilemma.
Here’s a sanitized version of the YouTube transcript:
—
So hypothetically, we have a dilemma. You’ve been arrested and imprisoned with your partner in crime… me. But it turns out the police don’t have a lot of evidence, so they separate us and offer you a deal: You deny the crime and pin it on me, and you walk free. The police say I’ve been offered the same deal, but you have no way of knowing my response.
And… there’s a catch. If you deny the crime and say I’m guilty, you walk free, but I’m in prison for three years. I could deny the crime and pin it on you – but then you’re in prison for three years. If we both blame each other, we each serve two years in prison. And if we both deny and stay quiet, we each serve one year in prison.
So, what do you do? This is the Prisoner’s Dilemma; it’s a paradox in Game Theory, the study of strategic decision-making. The dilemma is designed to see whether you cooperate with the other person or not. In economics, it’s called a simultaneous game – your decision is based on what you expect my decision to be. Just like rock, paper, scissors.
Hypothetically, if I wanted the best outcome for myself, I’d betray you. Sorry! I’d get to walk free! There is an advantage to cooperating, but there’s a bigger personal advantage to being selfish. However, in many studies using the prisoner’s dilemma, the most common response is to cooperate with the other person, so both stay quiet and serve a year in prison.
In the real world, cooperation exists between people, even when it doesn’t lead to an immediate or direct reward. To economists, the prisoner’s dilemma is a paradox because individually rational behavior – you walking free – leads to collectively irrational results – your partner getting more jail time.
Imagine it this way: One day you catch most of the trout from a lake and sell it. This has a great short-term benefit for you, but the strain of overfishing affects all users – it’s common property. This is known as the tragedy of the commons. It’s better if you cooperate with all the users, and personally, you’ll do better over time.
The thing is, we don’t think about the consequences over time in a one-off game like the prisoner’s dilemma. In another version of the dilemma, users face the problem repeatedly, and with the same person. And come to think of it, I don’t want to be back in the same situation after betraying you. In this case, economists say the best individual strategy is tit-for-tat: you cooperate the first time and then do whatever the other person did the last time. The threat of retaliation makes us much less likely to act selfishly.
We even see tit-for-tat strategies in animals – female vampire bats will share their food with other female bats that couldn’t find food, but only if those bats have helped them in the past. Over time, everyone does better if they cooperate.
But why is that? Why do we cooperate if the principle is sometimes counterintuitive to our survival? Well, social cooperation is intrinsically rewarding to our brains. In one study, participants did the prisoner’s dilemma with an assumed human participant in an fMRI machine. When people cooperated in the dilemma, activation was seen in brain areas linked to reward processing. The researchers suggest this activation of the reward circuit may help to override the temptation to not cooperate.
More brain imaging research found that when people cooperate in the prisoner’s dilemma, it increased the firing frequency of dopamine neurons in the midbrain. These neural mechanisms help us learn who is trustworthy in reciprocating favors, and who is not.
These studies have been done with university students, and that one with the female vampire bats. The prisoner’s dilemma was originally conceived in 1950, but no one thought to test it on actual prisoners for over 60 years. So in 2013, German researchers found that inmates were actually more likely to cooperate with other inmates than university students were with other students.
Think back to your answer at the beginning of this video – if you were in a real-life situation, do you think your answer would change? Social decision-making is one of the most complex human behaviors. When you think about it, you have to consider what other people are deciding and adjust your behavior; and so many other factors, like context, influence people’s responses. More than anything, it’s hard to predict how much people are willing to sacrifice their personal gains to increase or decrease the well-being of others.
I also have a quick announcement – PBS Digital Studios are doing a survey to find out which YouTube shows you watch and what you want to see more of. I’d really appreciate 5 minutes of your time to share your thoughts. And you can even win a cool t-shirt! The link is down below. Thanks!
—
This version removes any informal language and maintains a professional tone while preserving the core content.
Dilemma – A situation in game theory where a player must choose between two or more strategies, each leading to different outcomes, often with no clear optimal choice. – In the prisoner’s dilemma, each player faces a dilemma of whether to cooperate with the other or act in their own self-interest.
Cooperation – The process of working together to achieve a common goal, often leading to better outcomes in strategic games. – Successful cooperation between firms in a duopoly can lead to higher profits for both parties.
Economics – The social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, and how individuals and societies manage resources. – Game theory is a crucial tool in economics for analyzing competitive behaviors and market dynamics.
Game – A structured form of play or strategic interaction between players, where each player’s payoff depends on the strategies chosen by all players involved. – The Nash equilibrium is a key concept in analyzing the outcomes of a game.
Strategy – A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim, particularly in the context of game theory where players choose strategies to maximize their payoffs. – In a sequential game, each player’s strategy must consider the potential responses of other players.
Selfish – Acting in one’s own self-interest, often at the expense of others, which can influence the outcomes in strategic games. – In a competitive market, firms may adopt selfish strategies to maximize their own profits.
Outcomes – The possible results or consequences of a strategic interaction or game, often evaluated in terms of payoffs to the players involved. – The outcomes of a game are determined by the combination of strategies chosen by the players.
Research – The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions, often applied in economics to understand strategic behaviors. – Recent research in game theory has focused on the impact of digital platforms on market competition.
Decision-making – The cognitive process of selecting a course of action from multiple alternatives, crucial in strategic games where players must choose optimal strategies. – Decision-making in uncertain environments is a central theme in behavioral economics.
Interactions – The reciprocal actions or influences between players in a game, which determine the dynamics and outcomes of the strategic situation. – The interactions between competing firms can lead to various market structures, such as oligopolies.
