Prisoner’s Dilemma: To Cheat, or not to Cheat Part 3 of 6

In my last post I talked about the example of two suspects being interrogated by the cops. I laid out what would happen if they both cooperate/refuse to cooperate.

But if one cooperate when the other keeps his mouth shut, that’s when things get sticky. You see, the betrayer gets a light sentence, while the faithful one gets a heavy one. The game is illustrated as below:

	Suspect # 2 refuses to cooperate with the cops	Suspect #2 cooperates with the cops
Suspect # 1 refuses to cooperate with the cops	Both walk free. No sentence.	Suspect #1 gets a heavy sentence, while Suspect #2 get a light sentence.
Suspect #1 cooperates with the cops	Suspect #2 gets a heavy sentence, while Suspect #1 get a light sentence.	Each get a medium sentence.

The whole idea of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is to examine the thought process of the two suspects while they are locked in their separate jail cells with no idea what the other will do. How would they choose?

I remember learning it in university and thought it was so cool. It sure brings a sense of street danger into the otherwise wholly scholarly environment. It’s like The Godfather plus Law & Order plus The Sopranos plus that whole testifying mess with Lil’ Kim.

So as the two suspects lie in their separate little jail cells, doubts start to creep in. Suspect # 1 thinks to himself, “It’s nice and all if neither of us cooperate, but what if my partner gives in? Then I’m done for with a heavy sentence. But if I cooperate, then I’ll either get a medium or a light sentence. Either way, I’m better off than a heavy sentence. Well, forget about him. Why should I stick my neck out for him? I’m cooperating!”

(continued in my next post...)