Post fiction that deals with rational choice theory and game theory

Game theory recommends snitching, retard. You should probably avoid commenting on things you know literally nothing about.

Have fun explaining your crooked soul to Radamanthys while I converse with Homer in the underworld.

>the possibility of 20 years in the slammer with the guarantee you'll spend at least one year in there

No thank you, I don't care WHAT game theory says, I'll take my 0 or 5.

>Saying the same shit but bitching anyway

...

Quite literally Game by Donald Barthelme.

latexnet.org/~burnt/Game.html

Just don't commit any crimes you idiot

step aside, superior game theory coming through

The problem with the prisoner's dilemma is that it creates the narrative of "you and the other guy are bad people", so it causes people to make the non-altruistic choice when exposed to the problem.

This is retarded you are always better of if you confess...

All people in the world should just Absolutely Swear that if they were ever in the situation they would remain silent.

That way, if a prisoner did confess, the cops would kill them and let you go, because that guy broke the World Sworn Oath, which the cops and prison guards would be on, and Highly Respect, almost more than anything.

Of course this is assuming, you are innocent, or at least the crime was not grave?

but if you both confess you both get 5. If you both silent get 1. If the odds are you would confess, why would the odds not be they would confess? And if you both think that, then maybe that would be enough to think that the other would then be silent, assuming you both concluded that...which then means you can confess.... but they would have concluded that too...

Either way, if I get arrested with the threat of prison my professional life is probably over.

What dumbass is risking 20 years? And why does confessing tona crime let you walk free? Wtf am i looking at here? Why would i stay in jail for 20 years if the other guy confesses to it?

>the average between 0 and 5 is lower than 1 and 20
well I guess that's a perk if you get imprisoned 100 times under the exact same circumstances.

There are people on this board right now who have never heard of the Prisoners' Dilemma.

There are people on this board right now who can't figure out what the Priosners' Dilemma is based on OP's pic related without having it broken down to them.

There is at least one person on this board right fucking now who has never heard of mother fucking plea deals and one conspirator being offered immunity for testifying against his co-conspirator.

Jesus fucking Christ.

>There is at least one person on this board right fucking now who has never heard of mother fucking plea deals and one conspirator being offered immunity for testifying against his co-conspirator.
This was incredible to me as well. It's like he's eight days old.

Did you never watch Law&Order or whatever

You cooperate, you tell them what happened and they nail the other guy for every little detail, as a reward you get to go free

It's called making a deal come on you heard of this

The deal is never freedom when you commited the same exact crime that gets him 20 years. Use your head nigher. Immunity is rare. They might commute a light sentence if you roll on a bigger fish. Nobodys letting you walk free for an equal fish

Have fun getting assfucked by my big-dicked Italian brothers and cousins, bitch ;)

are you a girl

>says the guy in prison
O the iron knee

Have fun getting assraped in prison alongside your faggot Pizza friends for 20 years :^)

Is Prisoners Dilemma the best argument for why the death penalty is a good thing?

How so?

Dawkins talks about Prisoner's Dilemma in evolutionary terms in The Selfish Gene

>Dawkins

its just an obvious flaw in the legal system which the death penalty avoids completely

I think Dawkins is an idiot. I was answering OP, faggot.

Well I suppose if we just executed anyone who got arrested there wouldn't be any dilemma related to confessing and whatnot

reductio ad absurdum: why not just execute everyone before they break the law?

I dunno about that, but you realize that the death penalty offers exactly zero additional deterrent effect in comparison to life in prison, costs way more to carry out, and is, in fact, ya know, murder (just state-sanctioned)? So how is it a good thing exactly?

Its a thought experiment, the essence is what is important, not the pedantic details of frivolous formalities, but yes, we are all impressed with your knowledge

Well how would I know why we don't?

I don't make the laws, although maybe I should

Its an economic model showing a perceived decision making paradox where both parties have a dominant strategy of betrayal even though cooperation would be the most mutually beneficial outcome
It shows that the Nash equilibrium is not always the most efficient or utilitarian outcome

Its completely hypothetical

Why do thought experiments have to be dressed up with realist paint like this anyway? It's like they're made to be explained to fucking children.

Hal is making the wrong faces again.

criminals who go to jail and then get out go on to commit more crimes

criminals who die obviously can't do that

>criminals who die obviously can't do that
>implying criminals on death row can't commit more crimes
Have you never seen The Green Mile?

If I was president there wouldn't be no death row if you know what I'm sayin

No god damn waiting around for decades

well obviously thats just a failing of the system not the concept

typical bureaucracy problems which can always be fixed but won't because people would rather focus on more superficial things

Yes, yes I see. execution on site for people whom are believed to be break a small law in the future.

The fractal prince opens with the protagonist in a sort of multi dimensional version of the prisoners dilemma. It makes sense, is pretty cool

Its an issue of half measures

The legal system in most of the western world is full of them and they accomplish very little at times even making things worse

Its foolish to think that torture or punishment is some kind of alternative to killing when its really just a pacifier made for the mouths of the righteous

How can you live in freedom happily knowing you've sentenced someone who trusted you into 20 years of prison?

This was fantastic. Thanks for sharing.
Already read this. Beautiful mathematics, awful literature.

Everyone else in this thread is a mongoloid.

t. OP

How can you spend 20 years in prison with the knowledge that you are a fucking idiot and it's all your own fault for being dumber than your partner?

>Have fun explaining your crooked soul to Radamanthys while I shitpost on Veeky Forums in the underworld

You should know better to post an image like that you stupid fuck.

>being dumber
Being more loyal
I'd rather be the betrayed one than betrayer

>I would spend 20 years in prison if that means I get to keep my moral high ground

You are an idiot.

If you can't understand the difference between moral high ground and following morality I can't imagine what it would be like being your acquaintance

It would be like spending half your life in prison while I have a jolly time outside, enjoying my freedom

And people who are sentenced to life terms (like I mentioned in the post you responded to, you illiterate) don't get out, so your position is still bullshit, cool.

what's the point in sentencing someone to a life in prison rather than just killing them?

just seems cruel

Five with good behaviour and the chance to learn new skills and make friends with lots of interesting people. You, on the other hand, spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder, wondering if your wife and kids are just late when they don't turn up on time, if your house, and car will still be there when you come home from work. Every so often you will catch a glimpse of someone who you think you recognise, but are gone when you turn to speak to them. Oath breakers always learn in the end.

>latexnet.org/~burnt/Game.html

dummy here, I didn't get it.

two dudes are stuck in what might appear to be a nuclear bunker and are given orders to shoot the other should they deem the other is acting strangely? the gambit is that if one shoots the other, they will be unable to turn the keys at the right time because of the limitation that one man can not turn two keys simultaneously.

so it's just a story about the slow decline of sanity of the the narrator?

what am I missing?

The "gambit" is that either could ensure his safety by shooting the other, and rationalize it later by claiming the other was acting strangely, but then he'd spend the rest of god-knows-how-long alone. It's a prisoner's dilemma where things aren't as clear-cut – what's companionship worth? Is the companionship even real? What are the odds that the other guy will shoot me? Could I even successfully kill him if I tried?

This is why the narrator's sanity is declining – his relationship with his partner has all the characteristics of a friendship, but he can't tell if they're just going through the motions to avoid dying or if they actually care about each other. It's hard to tell what the rational thing to do would be, so different readers will have a different solution, but all possible solutions are still pretty unsatisfying.

Behold! Something resembling an argument!

Seriously, though, I can see that. I would prefer incarceration to be a vastly different experience, one focused more on restorative justice and rehabilitation, essentially something to fix the breakdown between the offender and his community. If it were so, then life sentences would not even exist, at least certainly not without the chance of parole, but even if they did, that would then be less cruel than death. Given the current model, yes, it could be argued that a life sentence is more cruel, I simply don't believe in deliberately ending life where it is not necessary for self-defense or the defense of another innocent.