Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Prisoner's Dilemma Discussed

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Go to: http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html

    Answer the following questions:

    1. What was the outcome of your game?
    2. What strategies did you use?
    3. Why were these strategies helpful?
    4. Where did you go wrong and why?
    5. What conclusions do you draw from this exercise?
    6. What ethical theory does this exercise relate to and how?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 9, 2019, 6:48 pm ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Please see response attached.

    Prisoner's Dilemma
    Go to: http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html

    Please go to the website and try the game using each of the different strategies (i.e. Golden Rule, The Brazen Rule, The Brazen Rule 3, Iron Rule, ??? Random Rule), after reading the following information about the game.
    About the Prisoner's Dilemma:
    The prisoner's dilemma was originally formulated by mathematician Albert W. Tucker and has since become the classic example of a "non-zero sum" game in economics, political science, evolutionary biology, and of course game theory. A "zero sum" game is simply a win-lose game such as tic-tac-toe. For every winner, there's a loser. If I win, you lose. Non-zero sum games allow for cooperation. There are moves that benefit both players, and this is what makes these games interesting. In the prisoner's dilemma, you and Albert are picked up by the police and interrogated in separate cells without a chance to communicate with each other. For the purpose of this game, it makes no difference whether or not you or Albert actually committed the crime. You are both told the same thing:
    • If you both confess, you will both get four years in prison.
    • If neither of you confesses, the police will be able to pin part of the crime on you, and you'll both get two years.
    • If one of you confesses but the other doesn't, the confessor will make a deal with the police and will go free while the other one goes to jail for five years.
    At first glance the correct strategy appears obvious. No matter what Albert does, you'll be better off "defecting" (confessing). Maddeningly, Albert realizes this as well, so you both end up getting four years. Ironically, if you had both "cooperated" ...

    Solution Summary

    By responding to the questions, this solution discusses aspects of the prisoner's dilemma.