The concept works like this, there is a player A and a player B. Each of player has two choices, they can either confess to the crime or they can keep quiet. If both of players keep quiet they receive the smallest amount of time in prison. However if both player A keep quiet and player B spills everything you go to jail for a long time (same vice versa). The third outcome would be for both players to choose to confess, giving both more jail time than if they had kept quiet. The idea is that it is better to confess because you cannot predict what the other person will do, therefore the best possible outcome you can give yourself (regardless of player B) is to confess.
Most often times we see this idea presented to us in a game show, or some sort of unusual situation that doesn't apply to normal everyday life. In my discussion section we saw it presented in a British game show called "Golden Balls" where at the end of the game the two players are presented with two options, you either "split" or "steal". If both players split they divide the money. If one steals and the other splits the player who steals keeps all the money. If both players steal no one gets anything. However, before I saw this game show example I had this concept introduced to me in yet another way.
 |
| Dr. Tim Lautzenheiser More on Dr. Tim |
Two years ago I attended a leadership workshop with my fellow "band leaders". We went to see Dr. Tim Lautzenheiser (say that ten times fast). With out getting into too much detail I will say that the workshop overall was very effective, and I still refer back to it today (as I am doing right now).
During our workshop we were put into many situations where we had to learn how to trust other people. The moral of the lesson was that if we can earn peoples trust they will follow and respect us as leaders. Dr. Tim set up a small game that we had to play in order to test our ability to earn trust from strangers (aka the new freshmen bando's).
The game worked similar to rock paper scissors, except only had two options; you could throw one finger out (a "one") or two fingers out (a "two"). If both players threw a one each player received 1 point. If one player threw a 2 and the other a 1, the player who threw the 2 gained 3 points and the player who threw the one lost a point. If BOTH players threw a 2 both players lost 5 points. The goal of course was to earn as many points as you could. After some experimentation and lots of throwing of "2's" everyone in the room eventually figured out that the only way for everyone to benefit was to have both players throwing one's. The real world application was that if you were to only focus on benefiting yourself, you would get better, but your followers would get worse. Say for example you are practicing marching (since this was a band related leadership workshop). If you decide you are only concerned about yourself and you spend all your time practicing on your own, you will get better but your freshmen will more than likely get worse because no one is helping them. If you were to give up some of your time to help them practice, both of you would get better at marching. Sure you would get much better if you devoted all the time to yourself, but if you were willing to sacrifice some of your time to help someone else, both of you would get a little bit better, and the group overall would benefit.
Images: Leaders and best , Dr. Tim
Sarah, it's very interesting that you bring up this certain game you participated in. I for one, agree with the idea that selfishness will get one nowhere. Teamwork and putting the group interest ahead of your own are certainly the necessary factors in dynamic success. Yet, don't get me wrong. Certain moments call for one to be selfish to ensure their survival. It even is vital for a person to be selfish at first to realize that the collective group is more important. This is where my life can relate. Throughout high school I took part in community service activities. One of these such activities was volunteering at a local retirement home, particularly an Alzheimer's residence. At the home I would play bingo with the residents, create arts and crafts, help them eat, or simply just talk with them. At first, say freshman year, this activity was merely a "resume-booster." One can say that I only had my self-interest in mind, hoping to make myself more marketable to colleges in the future. However, as time went by, I realized I was doing this for the wrong reasons. As I returned week after week, these people became more than just residents; they were individuals with their own past stories and experiences, before they were stricken with a deadly disease. After meeting some of their families, it really hit me how much I meant to all of them, even if they couldn't remember me each visit. I was benefitting more than just myself; I was helping the collective group. In turn, my inner change in fact made me a better person, and helped me more in the long run. You highlight this exact point, but I have to just add one thing; some people require a certain experience or moment to realize this fact.
ReplyDeleteWhile the idea of putting the best interest of the group over one’s own personal best interest is probably a good and noble one, I don’t see that it has anything to do with the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The finger game example you gave is not analogous to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. In addition to the stakes not being nearly as high, there are two vital differences. First, the fact that you get to play more than once (I’m assuming this since it seems to be the case and because otherwise the choices for points received and/or deducted don’t’ make much sense) means that over time getting one point can be more profitable than going for the three. Second, the points to be gained by each choice do not match up with the Prisoner’s Dilemma versions. If you draw a diagram of the Prisoner’s Dilemma and compare it to a diagram of the finger game, you why the situations are not comparable, because by choosing the “self-interest” route in the finger game, you stand to win two less points than you would have with one if the other player throws one, but stand to lose four more points than you would have if they throw two, which is not analogous to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Thus the strategies of the two situations are necessarily different and can’t be compared. Furthermore, the next example you give claims that the self-interested thing to do is to get better oneself, and that the better thing to do is to help the group get better. But helping the group get better is pretty obviously chosen as the best option because having a strong group benefits the individual in question, so is this not also done out of self-interest? Opting in favor one’s own skill is not necessarily the same as opting for in favor of one’s own best interest. In conclusion, you say that that we Michiganders will face the Prisoner’s Dilemma and will benefit from cooperation. But the math is not there, and the examples you have given to support this do not apply. Whether the prisoners genuinely considered themselves a team or not is not defined, but the game splits them up into two teams, where the other benefiting does nothing to benefit the first. Teamwork is great, and is in fact the reason society developed, but in the context of the Prisoner’s Dilemma as it is STRICTLY defined, unless there you are willing to bet your life on the other’s loyalty or unless there are some other extenuating circumstances cooperation is necessarily the wrong choice.
ReplyDeleteSarah, I would like to agree with your high value of teamwork and honesty, but I simply do not see the puzzle pieces aligning all too kindly. I do not look down upon your idea, rather I fail to see an apt correlation between the optimistic finger game and the survival-of-the-fittest ways of the Prisoner's Dilemma. The band building game pits people against other people who actually share one final goal. This goal is to work together and perform for crowds through dazzling entertainment and by stimulating the senses of sight and sound. Being in a band is not a solo sport, so to speak. Being a prisoner, however, more or less is being in this singular sport. Imagine having a family to provide for, a life to live, and things to do outside of the prison walls. How can a prisoner minimalize their time away from their family and other priorities? Confess. They cannot leave their time away from loved ones up to the trust they put into the prisoner who is fighting just as hard to shorten his sentence. Working together, even if it gets them both 3 years in the example from class, is a huge risk when the tantalizing idea of 1 year dangles on the string of confession. This game is also all in, there is no Doctor to lead you towards the right decision through repetition. So I, knowing all too well I value my time with loved ones and the joy of freedom, would have to confess and watch out for my own back before all else. I would continue to throw 2's upon 2's in the finger game, and confess, confess, confess if the prisoner's dilemma were to ever arise. Sometimes, one just has to make sure their butt is covered before looking out for others.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSarah, you bring up a good idea about how the Prisoner's dilemma is related to teamwork in an effort to benefit the whole group. However even though Prisoner's dilemma is concerned with a group of individuals pitting strategies, they are pitting those strategies against each other. That would not constitute as teamwork and friendliness and cooperation, but rather fierce, self-centered competition. For instance, your example of the class activity is somewhat a bad example because that activity is taught to "trust each other" as you say. In prisoner's dilemma, anything goes (or close to anything), and thus people decide that they might as well go for what they can get. Trust is possible to be built, but it is not the main intent of the prisoner's dilemma while your situation is centered around a collective benefit. Most likely, I think you are forgetting about the concept of dominant strategy, which is what drives each individual to do what they want. If you could get more, wouldn't you? Nonetheless, realize that prisoner's dilemma is a crude scenario that can bring out selfishness and greed, which is most likely the opposite of situations that stress teamwork for the best of all.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you that practicing and focusing on yourself necessary makes you selfish. In order to be a role model for freshman, I think that it's important that you practice as well. If you are unable to help yourself then you are not able to help others and be an effective leader.I believe within the context of band that it is important for individuals to trust one another. However, wouldn't trusting one another mean trusting that the other person is able to play their part? I also think that comparing the prisoner's dilemma to your activity at camp is inaccurate. The prisoner's dilemma a situation where there is an incentive to be selfish whereas, in a band there is less of a situation where being selfish is not necessarily beneficial and sometimes detrimental.
ReplyDeleteI played a game at LeaderShape in which we were required to make trades of chips that were of different value. However, when we made the trade we were not able to look at the chips that we were trading. So there was an incentive to cheat on the individual, in order to possibly gain more chips. I learned that even some of University of Michigan's leaders were quick to deceive others in order to gain an upper hand.