I posted this on /r/lesswrong, but they don't seem interested in replying so here it goes. God I'm going to hate myself for doing this; I really should be reading shouldn't I? Please don't reply to this thread if you meet one of the following: Needed Google to understand the thread title. Needed Google to understand the OP. Don't meet the Minimum Online Courtesy for Debate (MOCD).
You realize you got it wrong? It is supposed to be: S > P > T > R Best reward: neither defect. Second best: you defect, the other don't. Third best: both defect. Worst: you don't defect, the other defect.
Best reward is one defect- at least individually while thinking individually, yes i agreed in defect always even when when you know the other person answer it always improve your situation nevertheless this is under the assumption of no other variables scnerario, as soon as i know the other and if i feel reponsible for them then other possibilities appear as taking the complete fault etc, but that isn't the point of the OP
@Dragon God A quick question first, did you come across this because you played the Nonary games / Zero escape series? If you really want to bring this idea up, the most important factors have and always have been the group, the individuals within and the social factors involved. So, you need to clarify that a bit better as the only clues to that was your 'choice' referencing that you have only one other person with the same choice. You gave your own viewpoints and modus operandi, but you left the 'opponent' as a completely unknown entity. In addition, the punishment/threat is an extremely important issue to know as the more dangerous or threatening one would also decrease or increase your probability to bet on the other person. (minor edits were made for better clarification) So your question is unclear as you provided little background information, and the purpose of your question is also unclear as should we say that you are wrong, tell you that you are alright for being selfish (but in a Darwinian fashion), or have a philosophical debate with you about the choices (which is awkward as you missed the initial requirements of the prisoners' dilemma, the setting).
Woops, my mistake. Yeah, people always defect (as they should). It is in their best interest, even though cooperation would be better if they could coordinate.
I mean, why even call it the prisoner's dilemma if you aren't going to put the original hypothetical scenario? You know, "a year locked away if neither of you cooperate, but if you confess, you go free while they get 25 years. Of course, if I get confessions from both of you, you both get 10 years." Anyone involved in my criminal syndicate will be taught about this situation and instructed to not comply with officers and incriminate their peers, as it leads to the lowest total cost against the pair, even if each individually had a better option in confessing.
You have too many non-descriptive ill-defined variables for anyone to read through that post. Also, R > T > P > S (your variables not mine). That's the basics of the dilemma. Get that wrong and you're not even answering the right question
It's an economic problem.... if the prisoner have at least a minimum of contact before the decision they should cooperate, becauste it maximizes the total benefit...but (specially) because of delayed compensation usually they defect... the first one that betrays the other gets the big prize...
I sort understand why they didn't care for your thread. .... What you want with it? If you can't even explain that how to debate? You want to talk about logic? If so you need to put your premise better... I hope that since you posted here it has something to do with a novel. If so you need to put the name chapter and etc so we can coment if not.......
The biggest total gain should be they both cooperate, the biggest unilateral gain shoud be one defects the other not, and the worst both of them defect...
T > R > P > S That's the correct relationship of the payoffs. Don't know how I screwed that up. You guys both got it wrong. If R had the highest payoff, it wouldn't be a dilemma; cooperation would be the obvious, instant and immediate choice by any two rational agents. T has the highest payoff; that's what makes it a dilemma.