Reply to comment

When playing Prisoner’s Dilemma, I started out by competing and then switching to cooperating and then randomly competing for a few turns.  This strategy worked pretty well.  In the short run (for example, one turn) it may be beneficial to compete because you will get 5 coins until the opponent starts competing too and then you each get less than if you both cooperated.  So, in the long run it is beneficial to cooperate because you and your opponent will realize you will both get more coins per turn by cooperating. 

This reminds me of the Batman movie when the Joker traps innocent civilians on a ferry and inmates from a jail on another ferry.  If I remember correctly, each ferry is given a device that will blow the other one up.  They have a time limit and if one ferry blows the other up, they will be set free.  (I can’t remember if they will all survive if they both decide not to blow the other boat up or if he makes this ambiguous…) The civilians thought the criminals would press the button because they were heartless criminals, and the criminals thought the civilians would press the button because they knew the civilians thought they were bad, heartless people.  In the end no one pressed the button and they all survived because they had cooperated.  This is an unrealistic example, but is interesting to think about. 

The prisoner’s dilemma is so difficult because you can never know what the other person will do, but you have to make your decision based on what you think they will do.  In making your decision you should choose what would benefit you no matter what they choose.  In biology we discussed how and why humans and other animals (such as ants and monkeys) developed a dependency on groups.  This social behavior is contrary to the idea of “survival of the fittest.”  What some animals figured out is that although living in a group requires some compromises, in the long run everyone gains more from cooperating.