Prisoner’s Dilemma: To Cheat, or not to Cheat Part 2 of 6

Last time I told you about my old friend’s view on cheating. Though his thinking was flawed, it could be explained through an economic decision-making model called the Game Theory, and the problem that arise from it called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The thing is, at the first glance it looks like the theory supports cheating, but further examination tells a totally different story.

Now, there are many academic papers written on Prisoner’s Dilemma, with many variations on the game. But for the purpose of this analysis, I’ll just look at the game in its most classic form, with just one variation at the end.

To put it simply, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is nothing but the decision of whether or not to screw your partner over.

For example, say two suspects were arrested by the cops for robbing the bank, but the cops don’t have sufficient evidence to nail either of them. So they take the two wise guys into separate interrogation rooms, give them a Red Bull, and turn up the charm. “Just confess,” the detectives coax Suspect #1, “You’ll get off in no time if you work with us.” They say the same thing to Suspect #2.

If the two suspects refuse to cooperate with the cops, then they both walk free that very same day, because the cops ain’t got nothing on them.

If they both cooperate, then they each get a medium level sentence.

(continued in my next post...)