Understanding The Prisoner’s Dilemma

You can not use simple metaphor to make all conflicts understandable, but prisoners' dilemmas help to explain the essence of certain problems. It may not be a direct application of the metaphor, but aspects can be used to explain the strategy used by either party. "Prisoner's dilemma" refers to a zero sum game that includes cooperation, not cooperation, in order to achieve the best results for personal benefit. A zero sum game defined in the Oxford dictionary is a "game or situation where everything acquired by one party is lost by the other party".

First of all, it is illegal to conspire with competitors to maintain high prices. You and your competitors should never talk about pricing at all. But by understanding the plight of the prisoners, you better understand what economists call "hidden collusion". This is because the competitors are not aggressive and the price of the industry remains high. In other words, competitors seem to collaborate without conspiracy. Please imagine that the police arrested you for robbing the bank. Of course you are innocent. They also arrested others with the same crime. In the interrogation room, the police said: "We have seized your accomplice, you have problems, you have to admit that it is easier to make a decision."

Prisoner's dilemma is the application of game theory to describe many real events. The obvious revelation of prisoners' dilemmas is that when people make 'smart' decisions rather than 'foolish' decisions people may get worse. It can be used to explain why totalitarian regime is sustainable. This is your prisoner's dilemma. No matter what your partner chooses, you will always be good at playing in the business. Your partner will reason in the same way. The final result is that none of you will fight. Both of you do not fight and enjoy 80 people 's life, you two can only live a good life with 50 points.

Several industries such as the healthcare industry are inherently confusing the driving force of choosing strategies not optimal by participants and the result is known as the prisoner's dilemma. A prisoner 's dilemma in game theory is that each of the two participants has two choices, the result of which is mainly dependent on the opponent' s simultaneous selection. We believe that block chains can solve the plight of prisoners of welfare and other similar corporate environments.

One variable that may change the consequences of a prisoner's dilemma is communication. If prisoners can identify games used against them, they can decide what kind of collective action they will take if they are arrested and applied. In other words, they can form a game plan in advance. Another variable that can change the consequences of the prisoner's dilemma is consistency. This variable is effective when the game is repeatedly done. Players usually make decisions based on previous responses. For example, if Steve retains loyalty to Tang for the first time, Tang makes a decision and the likelihood that Steve is willing to cooperate increases. Likewise, if Steve sold Don in the first round, Tang is likely to view Steve as a competitor, not a collaborator. The difficulty of consistency as a strategy is that once "trust" is broken once, the game gets worse in the failed competition.