You’re a bad person. Here’s why.
We like to think we are good moral beings yet, here’s a dilemma.
I present to you the Prisoner’s Dilemma. A gambling issue that has been presented to many and undergone numerous social psychological experiments. Many profound figures have been fascinated by this dilemma, including figures like Axelrod who is famous for his contributions to the Complexity Theory.
The game has such simplicity but displays and opens up the innate cunning nature of the human mind. Here is how the game works.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
- There are 2 players and me, the Banker. For ease sake we will name the players A and B respectively. In each of the players hands, there are 2 cards. One labelled Cooperate and other Defect.
- Both players will simultaneously pick either one of their two cards and place it facedown at each turn. Because there are 2 cards * 2 players, this will result in a 4 option showdown. The Players are both aware of the results from each of these options.
- These Options are presented for 10 Rounds with the results of each Round showed to both individuals after their pick.
Option 1: Player A and Player B both pick cooperate. The Banker sees this and gives them each $300.
Option 2: Player A and Player B both pick Defect and the Banker fines both $10.
Option 3: Player A picks Cooperate while Player B picks Defect. The Banker pays Player B $500 and fines Player A $100.
Option 4: Player A picks Defect while Player B picks Cooperate. The Banker pays Player A $500 and fines Player B $100.
As Player A, a first hand look at these 4 Options would tell you that ideally Option 1 is the most mutually beneficial, however, this is under the pretext that this Player A knows Player B and can be safely assured that Player B will Cooperate. However, this setting demands that both Players have something on the line, in this case perhaps both Players are in equal financial debt. Only in this case will this Dilemma reach its optimal state of questioning.
As a Player, here are your 4 Options explained.
Option 1: A and B Cooperates — both are rewarded. If you cooperate you will likely receive $300. An easy choice but if you are in financial debt, wouldn’t you say that the option to defect presents a much better chance of ridding you of financial debt? In comparison to Cooperate where only in 1 scenario you stand a chance at benefit from mutual cooperation.
Option 2: A and B Defects: Both are punished. In this case, you have made an attempt for the larger prize at the expense of oppositional suffering. Both you and Player B are penalised with a $100 fine for this.
Option 3 and 4 are mirror images in which whoever plays the good person ends up martyred.
We as humans consider ourselves as rational beings meaning that we will always do what is best for us in the short term or long run. Rationality itself would determine that in a game of 10 rounds, a run of 10 straight defects would likely present you the greatest odds of winning the most money. However, this removes the moral [AJBA/1] [AJBA/2] aspect of our decision making, while we are indeed rational beings, we do choose to make an occasional ‘soft decision’. A test consisting of 40 people who played 1 round blindfolded concluded that 22% of the time, each [AJBA/3] choose at least 1 Cooperate.
Despite the overwhelming 78% of choices being Defect, it is interesting to note that a computer simulation of human choice would have us picking defect 100% of the time. This 22% does make a substantial difference and represents us thinking from a groups perception.
You may be thinking, ”Okay, now what can I do with this information?”
I can give a more realistic scenario, simply switching out the players with companies.
Player A is Bookstore A and Player B is Bookstore B. Let’s say that there is 100 people in a community and each of them have $1, additionally everyone only needs one book and both Bookstores are selling 100 books for $1 each. Advertising in this hypothetical costs $10, so here are the following analogues:
Option A: Bookstore A and B both do not run advertising and sell each 50 books for $1. Earning them a total of $100.
Option B: Bookstore A and B both run an advertising and sell each book for $1. Earning them a total of $60. ($100-(2*10)).
Option C: Bookstore A runs advertising while B does not and sells 20 more copies, earning Bookstore A $70 while Bookstore B a mere $30.
Option D: Bookstore B runs advertising while A does not and sells 20 more copies, earning Bookstore B $70 while Bookstore A $30.
Scenarios like this are not so perfect in the real world yet, it presents the psychological decision making that founds capitalism. We all make that deceptive choice to ‘one up’ someone else and it is ingrained into our human psyche.
This averaging out that us humans will more likely than not pick the deceptive choice that leverages on someone else’s downfall can make a premature conclusion that we, as humans, can make subconsciously deceitful choices whether we are aware or not. This leads to the conclusion that our psyches in nature have the majority capacity to be much more deceitful than we pose ourselves to be.
Would be good to give them a food for thought. Like: Now that you know this, are all your bad decisions accidental or are they all part of us?
I would like to emphasise that my views do not represent any cooperation or entity. These are no means of an attack on anyone’s right of speech, views, or religion but rather to explore and share my train of thought. I ask not for everything to be taken in strict correctness but rather for you to read or look for other sources to formulate an individual opinion to appropriately discuss and learn.
Bradley Zander.
