The prisoner's dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two completely "rational" individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interest to do so.
Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They hope to get both sentenced to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to: betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The offer is:
-If A and B betray each other, each of them serves two years in prison
-If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free but B will serve three years in prison (and vice versa)
-If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve one year in prison
YOU ARE READING
Idioms, Fallacies, and Paradoxes
RandomAll definitions are 100% written by Wikipedia, not my own words.
