PRISONERS DILEMMA
1. Context
Giving his keynote address at the Goa Maritime Conclave, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh referred to the concept of “Prisoner’s Dilemma” to underscore the need for countries to collaborate with each other instead of working at cross purposes.
2. What is the Prisoners dilemma?
- The Prisoner's Dilemma represents one of the most well-known scenarios within the field of Game Theory, a scientific discipline dedicated to understanding how individuals and entities make decisions in various situations.
- By employing game simulations, Game Theory not only aids in elucidating the concept but also provides insights into achieving optimal results.
- In a straightforward sense, one might assume that a person or a nation should always opt for actions that promise the best personal gain.
- However, reality is intricately layered with complexity and uncertainty. Furthermore, the final outcome is contingent upon the actions taken by other individuals or nations.
- It is worth noting that the ultimate result can change drastically if the other party or parties adopt a conflicting approach.
- For instance, as mentioned by the Defense Minister, a nation aiming to secure its borders by amassing a larger arsenal of weapons might inadvertently initiate an arms race with another country, contrary to their initial goal. The Prisoner's Dilemma serves as a game that aptly illustrates this paradox.
- Consider a situation where two individuals, denoted as A and B, find themselves under investigation for a crime.
- The available evidence is largely circumstantial, and the most that law enforcement can hope to achieve is a one-year prison sentence for both A and B, unless, of course, they manage to obtain more substantial evidence. One approach to secure this evidence is by encouraging the prisoners to implicate each other.
- Consequently, the police officer places A and B in separate rooms and presents them with a straightforward choice: If one of the prisoners accuses the other of involvement in the crime, the accuser can escape punishment while the accused receives a 15-year prison sentence. In the event that neither prisoner confesses, both will serve only a one-year prison term.
- In essence, the Prisoner's Dilemma revolves around the decision of whether to confess or remain silent.
3. What should Prisoners do?
- At first glance, opting to remain silent may seem like the most sensible course of action. If both individuals choose to remain silent, they will secure the most favourable outcome, which is serving just one year in prison.
- However, can either of them be certain that, while they remain silent, the other won't betray them to the authorities?
- The reality is that if either of the prisoners opts for silence, they expose themselves to the possibility of facing the harshest prison sentence, which is 15 years.
- On the other hand, if both prisoners decide to confess, they implicate each other and receive 10 years of imprisonment each.
- The paradox here is that when one cannot predict the other prisoner's behaviour with certainty, confessing becomes the rational choice.
- The optimal outcome, of course, resides in cooperation. If both prisoners cooperate by confessing, they can attain the most favourable result, serving just one year in prison.
- This dilemma, along with its solutions, holds relevance in various real-life contexts, encompassing international law and business.
4. Way forward
For instance, should two companies selling the same product — say ice creams — keep undercutting each other by reducing the price in order to corner the market share? Could repeated use of this strategy lead them to reduce prices to such a level that it becomes economically unviable to stay in business
Source: indianexpress
