So, be trustworthy to the point where it becomes a seemingly predictable part of your character, surround yourself with gullible but otherwise capable people, and change course only when the stakes reach a point at which you capitalize on the reputation you've build for yourself. Also incapacitate betrayed parties to avoid loss of reputation. Gotcha.

Excellent, clear explanation. With bonus real-life examples and connections to other ideas. Thanks!

I'm very glad that this video connected the prisoner's dilemma to the tragedy of the commons. I've always noticed that the two are both forms of the same problem, but I haven't seen anyone else acknowledge this.

If there is a virulent, mildy deadly pandemic, and the best course of actions to do would be to act in a calm, logical manner, acting almost as you had before but with more caution in your personal hygiene and courtesy, then all will turn out well, which you do. Later, you watch as everyone around you buys everything they can, emptying shelves of wares, driving the prices of said wares up, leaving nothing behind for you neighbors who also assumed that people would rely on their better nature, and thus kicking off a cycle of tragedy. The panicking masses take almost everything, leaving the more rational to do so in order to avoid future shortages, and those who can do neither starve.

" But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me."

Excellent lesson! I had never had this problem explained to me with such clarity. I thought I understood it before, and it turns out I didn't. But I understand it now. Thank you very much for sharing this! :)

I always find myself on the 15 years side because my heart is too kind and allow people to take from me... I am frustrated with myself but I just really dislike being selfish.

Prisoner's Dilemma is not an instructive model for free-market interactions (or even for interactions in the mixed economy that we live in today) for a couple of reasons: 1) In real life, a big part of people's genuine, long-term self-interest is earning rewards by producing or creating valuable things. Self-interest is not merely a matter of cooperating or not cooperating to avoid punishments meted out by some authority. If people fail to enact the conditions that allow for the reliable creation and trade of wealth, it is a predictable and detrimental (non-self-interested) outcome that will result. 2) In real life, rational self-interest includes supporting a government that punishes fraud and enforces contracts. When you take into account the option of honestly producing and trading wealth in pursuing your long-term self-interest, the option of committing fraud, arbitrarily violating contracts, or committing criminal acts is seen to be very much inferior: You expend effort without creating value and turn all other people (including the government) into enemies, if your deception is ever figured out. Whether other people figure out your deception is mostly out of your control, thus putting your own life out of your control in ways it wouldn't be otherwise. You turn from a reliable method of obtaining goods to one that diminishes your productivity and threatens to wipe out your freedom more and more, the more you practice it. (As with Bernie Madoff.) In regard to the Tragedy of the Commons, the solution is to *have no commons*. Even volumes of air and water can be considered property, just with the recognition that damage to this property can be done in ways that don't apply to other forms of property. If a person owns a section of lakebed and the water above it, then if someone pollutes the lake in a way that provably damages his use of that volume, he can sue for property damage (tort.) Similarly for air: if someone puts out fumes that affect the air over one's property in such a way as to provably damage his health, comfort, or other use of his property, he could sue. I discuss this solution to the Tragedy of the Commons in more detail here: objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/laissez-faire-capitalism-solves-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-and-deals-with-negative-externalities-a-dialogue/.

and THAT'S why I CLEARLY can't choose the wine in front of you!

My brain just exploded.

This is kind of the problem with nukes

The moral is that you can never ever trust anyone. Ever.

It's funny how with the prisoner dilemma's "solution" is to make the consequences of snitching worse than taking the 3 years. We actually see something very similar in the real world in Mafias where there is zero tolerance for snitching and the consequences are usually bloody

I didn't understand how selfishness is not the fundamental problem here. Can anyone explain that to me?

It is interesting watching two groups isolated in different rooms grapple with this. The discussions in the two rooms I observed discussed what they should do for a long while.

This is a terrific explanation. "World 101"

Does this mean that we should all resort to outcome B? Assuming that your partner can be trusted and trusts you, can you both reach the conclusion to end the circle thinking and resort to outcome B? I think this all depends on trust and the rational thinking of both you and your partner.

Thank you for creating.

Just a note that rationality in AI is defined as acting according to a specific objective function. In practice, this means that your actions indeed help you achieve your goals and priorities. It is not irrational to rat on the other, as many of you mentioned, because your ultimate priority is to get as few years jail time as possible. Of course it is not that simple because the outcome is probabilistic, but still, it is not irrational if for example you trust the other person not to rat on you. Rationality has nothing to do with the common good. Unless of course your 'objective function' actually specifies that common good is your priority.

That single handedly show emotion fully is not negative for rationality in long term. The only way of deciding a certain action is based on necessity of presume ideas of environments that emotion makes it available.

Sounds very similar to the scene with the boats and prisoners in the Dark Knight

Brilliant! Thank you very much!

Very nice explanation, thanxx, I'll save it to watch it again.

I enjoyed this 🧐It really depends on what my relationship is with Isobel, do I know her well enough to second guess her response to the jail sentence? This is like a question of 'are you a team player or a go solo'. All stick to the rules for a FAIR outcome, or sneak a bit more for yourself?

Which tool you have used to compose this video ?

Awesome video!

I participated in such "experiments" (like the 10-20-30 oil price exercise). Once trust was broken, both opposing parties ended up in the crapper. In later negotiations, both were afraid to trust and, time and again, they were back in the crapper. Fortunately, me and my opponent started off curbing our greed and trust grew. We ended up in the upper right "prosperity" quadrant, while others spun into the lower left quad (the crapper) and couldn't get out for the rest of the exercise no matter how they cajoled each other. Hopefully the U.S. can pull out of the "distrust" hole that we've dug during the last four years.

There was a gameshow based on this concept. It was shit, but I always found it cool. Basically, if you "rat the other person out," and she stays quiet, then you keep all the money; if you both rat out, then you both get nothing; if you both stay silent you each take half.

This reminds me of the "State of Nature" wich Hobbs discribed, where everybody is at constant War.

Incredibly well-crafted piece; akin to a book that offered a similarly comprehensive analysis. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell

Great vids.

If you are stupid, you will rat the other guy without thinking about his possible decision. If you are "an average guy", you will not rat the other guy, if you don't think about the other guy's possible decision. If you are clever, you would think this all through, identify that other guy and do what your moral accepts you to do. If you are an genius, you would not get caught.

what does he mean by saying that if they are effective reasons they shift the costs and benefits away from years in jail in ways that you are not in a prisoner's dillema 8:50 - 8-55? how do they shift the costs and benefits? and how does he prove that it's not selfishness after all?

So I'll get 3 years for parole violation, 15 years for robbery (not sure if the parole violation is included,) or 10 years for..... what exactly?

Thanks!

There's a gameshow that uses a similar concept called Goldenballs.

Very eloquently explained. I do tend to disagree with you in that selfishness does play a part here. Let us not forget the economic work conducted by Adam Smith. Also would you be able to upload your interpretation of Newcomb's Problem? It is one of my favourite thought/rationality problems. Thank you in advance.

Is the photo of Mr. Sayre-McCord taken in Amsterdam?

Virtue's Last Reward

Huh I didn’t know it was this deep. Who knew a video game - Zero Escape: Virtues Last Reward - will take such an interesting thought in adopt it so well in its core game.

In other words, human beings love to gamble.

I need to stop subbing to these channels, I'm learning something!

Amazing presentation! Favorited this talk but I didn't quite understand after 9:00 and A, B, C, D. Is there another way to explain how selfishness explaining the prisoners dilemma is off the mark? Is the problem that there are certain things that are better than others and because they are better it creates this dilemma?

enlighten me: how is this not about selfishness (considering you understand this dynamic and you know the opposing party has the ability to know it)?

Hey it's a very nice video Professor. I do not quite get the A, B, C, D order in the last part. Viewing the prisoner it would be the best for me to defect (if my partner cooperates), hence D (and A for my partner); after that if we both cooperate, hence C; then if we both defect, hence B; and after this if I cooperate and my partner defects, hence A (and D for my partner). So i just guess you mixed B and C up in there? So defecting: D or B, cooperating: C or A; what still brings us to the conclusion, that one do better by defecting in general.

anybody else think "what would Revan do ?"

I love the fact North Carolina is doing this.

Thnx for the knowledge homeslice. Free* is the best price. Will drop a like.

Individualism vs collectivism

"Rat" on eachother? Couldn't you use a more scientific technical term - like "snitch"?

-Don't worry chuck, I'll remain silent. -Oh believe me isabella, I'm pretty sure of that... (gun charging)

Is this guy Piero from Dishonoured?

Id like to see a follow up on this with the implications of using the 'tit for tat' moral philosophy. :)

I gess this explains all the robberies.

UNC Chapel Hill 💜💜

Make the rules, convince everyone to follow them, and do what you want ;)

What if I cared more about Isabellas welfare than my own? thus choosing to remain silent, despite her actions, to allow her to save herself?

khirchri..btw well explained. thanks for the efforts

What kind of criminal did not talk about what will happen in an investigation before doing the act?

I just kept thinking of A Princess Bride while I watched this video--Iocaine Powder.

To achieve that you must know the Golden rule

Why would a rational person pull a diamond heist while on parole?

The premise is wrong. Why would you both get 10 if you rat on each other? What's the logic behind it? If you're both guilty you get 3, so why 10?

There is a flaw in this understanding. You don't count on environment pressure be it by time or rules. If by any means said prisoner need to look after his dad which is on its dead bed there will be a shift in this dilemma. He truly need to be out for 0 year. Then what will happen? He will arrange a new environment where he will be the winner either by threatening the other prisoner life or family. There is more there is a neglect that the detective need the fastest and possible outcome for them and not for the prisonner. Therefore they can lie about the other ratting and pull the trigger of each ratting at each other at the end to lower theirs sentences. What we learn here is that time frame and environment is the key that change the tide of this dilemma.

Slightly long-winded, but extremely good concept to know. Altruism and morality will develop using these philosophical dilemmas.

It's to me making no sense because all that led to you being in jail is important you can't make rational decision when all else depends not only you. It doesn't matter what you think is reasonable. You see if in place there are laws and right interest and focus on right things then you can avoid dilemas all together

Sounds like a problem of intemperance to me.

I miss north Carolina

0.48 i will make them an offer that they can not refuse.

I dislike how repetitive the script was.- that being said still a cool concept!

The Dark Knight, anyone?

Or just dont commit robbery with your friends

That's definitely how I decide to rat out my P.I.C., mathematically.

The first analogy is flawed because even if both of you confess they can’t convict solely on a confession. It must be corroborated by evidence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and therefore it doesn’t matter who confesses and “rats” the other out. The evidence would have to point to that fact and you’ve even stipulated that there is no evidence linking either of them to the heist

omerta

Anyone here play Knights of the Old Republic?

So in summary, people are crap

or just turn yourself in and take the 3 years

It IS inherently about selfishness though. It's being presented entirely from the perspective of personal, individual gain. This is exactly the definition of selfishness - a focus on the good of self. The solution is selflessness - the focus on the good of others and forgoing your own good. Think of it the opposite direction. If my goal is to better the outcome of the other party, then I can ALWAYS do that by cooperating. I have to be willing to face 15 years in prison and be satisfied with that outcome if it means that I have done a great service by allowing my partner to go free. A step further is the concept of love. Love is like selflessness except that instead of focusing on the good of others instead of yourself, the good of others becomes equal to the good of yourself. I would count it gain for you to escape those three years in prison as if I were the one escaping three years in prison. He said it's a mistake to point to the problem being selfishness, but didn't explain in any way why that was a mistake. He just did some hand-waving and discussed the problem more generally.

The danger of Hobb's thought is that if the Leviathan decided to use its power for its own benefit than there's no stopping it.

12 easy years in prison off loyalty.

Privatize everything.

This mindfucked me

in reality if they don't talk their is no crime/time.

its a never ending cycle lol

This is the Dilemma my girlfriend and I go through every time we try to order take out.

No, this all relies on the theory that we are all selfish, feel no compassion and don’t care about others

or if you really don't trust her just say you both did it so at least you're both in jail for the same amount

I think he just accidentally proved the case for God.

Human greed is our eternal dilemma.

That's why you figure out who the betrayer is with small things so that when you get to the prisoner's dilemma you know what they will pick. Always betray a rat

why does he assume we're all men

flaw in the story is that the detective has no hard evidence so all you need to do is shut up and both will get zero

Solution is easy. You have to kill your partner after the heist.

I can't stand fake hand drawn animations. Either do it or don't. I don't care which, but it's pointless to put the hand in if no one is actually drawing it.

Ok, I understand why you did it now Isabella. I forgive you. Let's meet at the old hideout. Bring the diamonds. And a shovel.

this is definitely math but with social context

So what Dafuq does the issue of a corrupt system have to do with sharing resources?? 😑 Can’t this be a question about victims of circumstance and abuse of power??

TLDW; Anarchy rules.

Why use 1 word when you can use 20.