Prisoner's Dilemma (Game Theory)

[Murfish]

This is just a little something to start conversation and see how you react. I don't know if any of you are familiar with game theory, but if you are it will be pretty much an exact example.



Scene:

So you and your partner have just been brought into a police station. You are seperated as soon as you get into the building and brought into a room to be interrogated in reference to an robbery that happened a week ago.

It turns out that the police expect that the two of you did it, but they only have enough evidence to prove that one of the two of you did it. They explain to you that in another room other officers are telling your partner the same exact thing. They proceed to say that they wish for you to testify against your partner. If you do, then you would recieve no jail time and be cleared of all charges, while your partner goes to prison for the next 10 years. The flip side is that they are offering your partner the same exact deal. In addition, if neither of you testify you will each recieve 6 months in prison. Finally if both of you testify, you both will recieve 5 years in prison.

So, what would you do and why? This is a test of human behavioral patterns. Please be absolutly honest when answering.

I will post my thoughts after seeing how some react.


To clear things up, the partner is not romantically involved with you. The are quite literally your partner in crime.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I'd never be able to do that to anyone, and I hope all my friends would feel the same way for me. I wouldn't be able to testify against someone when I knew they were innocent. 10 years is a hell of a lot of time. And I really would hate the people who would do that to another person just to save themselves. If someone is so close to you, wouldn't it be just as hard for you without them for 10 years anyway?

 

[The Snake]

I'm not sure I have read it right because the answer seems so obvious. Of course I would not testify, the numbers speak more than the people involved. 12 Months Combined Jail Time or 10 Years Combined Jail Time? I think that is where it lies for me.

However, if we then add that it is your partner, we then know the type of person that they are, and if it was my partner, I know I would be with someone who would not testify against me, knowing that I would never do the same to them. So I'm sure you would both know what the other is thinking and just take the joint sentence.

There is a third variable to add into this, and that is a criminal record, is it worth losing both peoples jobs and in all likelihood any future well paid careers for both people as opposed to one? My answer still remains the same because of what I said in the first paragraph, the combined total is less and that is what matters.

Fourth Variable (or an extension of the 2nd) is how much you like the partner, and this is only in a minority cases. Let's say that they have been abusive to you and you have not been able to create concrete evidence against them, it then creates a further problem, in this case I would testify against them (Two wrongs making a right - Which I don't normally agree with).

And Variable Number 5 - WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Well, how do you deal with it if Children are thrown into the equation? I mean, having no parents for 6 months or 1 parent for 10 years? It all depends on if there is a figure of trust and what part of their life they are at, but I still think I would take the shorter sentence combined.

Note: I started off with my initial responses to the issue, but as I got onto adding other variables it all became a much more investigative thing.

 

[LigerBomb]

Clearly it would all depend on what you believe your accomplice would chose, which I suppose would in turn speak to your beliefs on said partner's character. Were I a pessimist who had no regard for honor amongst thieves it looks as though I'm headed to the clink for 5 years.

So, do basically good trustworthy people sometimes commit crimes?

 

[FromTheSouth]

The best solution is always to tell the truth. You just need to hope that the other guy tells the truth as well.

Furhterm ore, they only have enough evidence to convict one of you, so the threat of 6 months apiece is probably bull. Furthermore, what crime would yo be convicted of that would send you together to jail for six months, yet ten years on your own? This also means the cops are full of shit. This is how cops coerce confessions by innocent men.

I know the point of the exercise is to test morals, but I've always found the question flawed.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The best solution is always to tell the truth. You just need to hope that the other guy tells the truth as well.

Furhterm ore, they only have enough evidence to convict one of you, so the threat of 6 months apiece is probably bull. Furthermore, what crime would yo be convicted of that would send you together to jail for six months, yet ten years on your own? This also means the cops are full of shit. This is how cops coerce confessions by innocent men.

I know the point of the exercise is to test morals, but I've always found the question flawed.

Morally speaking, telling the truth may be the best option. However, rationally speaking, it is best to testify (in game theory terms, this is what would be called a dominant strategy). What you have to do is make your choice according to the possible actions of the other suspect. Under the assumption he testifies, you could either not testify and get ten years or testify and get five years. Thus, to avoid more jail time, you testify in this instance. Under the assumption he doesn't testify, you could either not testify and get six months or not testify and get no jail time. Thus, likewise, in this instance, you testify in order to get no jail time as opposed to some jail time.

As an aside, the Prisoner's Dilemma is primarily used for two purposes. One, it is used to introduce either economic or mathematic students to game theory and its fundamentals. Or, two, it is used by some international relations scholars as a method to show why international cooperation is so difficult in certain policy areas.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I use game theory in poker. It teaches one to analyze all outcomes and make rules for each situation.

But honor among thieves is the variable in this instance, and whether or not someone subscribes to that theory is something you cannot plan for until the outcome is known.

That being said, I still keep my mouth shut and put my faith in the justice system.

 

[Mr. TM]

I wouldn't testify. I can say that because my partner in rime will be someone that I know very well, and would know they wouldn't testify. If I had done it, which I am assuming I have with this game, and I was caught, I would suck it up, and be happy with the lighter prison sentence that I would then get. I would rather get 10 years than no time.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

Damn this is tough. It would all depend on who the friend was I got in trouble with. If I knew it was one that I could trust I would go with the both 6 months. But honestly just to make sure my friend didn't screw me over I would take the deal and take. If my friend also did it, than we are both in jail. But if he chose to protect me I'm out scotch free. Of course my friend would be in prison for 10 years but I guess I'm a bad person.

 

[Tim]

This is suprisingly easy a decisionto make. It all comes down to whoever my partner in crime is. I believe that one of my smarter friends wouldn't testify against me. I believe that they would know me well enoughand be smart enough to know that I wouldn't testify either. I couldn't handle the guilt if I did testify. That being the case we would both go to jail for six months, but I would be with my buddy so I would be able to survive. But if I supposedly commited the crime with one of my stupider friends, I would take the deal.