airborne Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 (edited) I decided to write this because of a discussion I had in a group re: altruism, and people presented the "prisoner's dilemma" as proof of altruism working. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma So I was shown this Prisoner's "dilemma". Why it is a dilemma, I don't understand. Dilemma seems to imply that the cause of the loss is "selfishness", and the solution "altruism". However, cant one say that their choice was not in their self-interest since it was based on a limited amount of data? Anyway for fun I produced this: The Struggling business dilemma Technology company A Retail store B (yes, this is just as realistic as the prisoner dilemma IMO) A and B are altruistic and pay taxes: A reduces Research&Development and sacrifices future innovation, B is unable to grow due to lack of capital. A and B are selfish and avoid taxes through legal loopholes: A increases its Research&Development creating a new product which B will sell in its expanded stores. Customers will enjoy great new products at cheaper prices. It is quite a dilemma, just like the prisoner's dilemma. Edited October 13, 2007 by airborne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 The prisoners dilemma is about cooperation, not altruism. The whole key to the use of this as an example of altruism is the assumption that the prisoners can't talk to each other or make any sort of prearranged agreement. Also, it's usually stated as some sort of prisoner (read: criminal), so that the trustworthiness of the other party is in deep question. It is not an example of altruism but rather a form of analysis for what factors are critical to cooperation. Altruism would be if the "should" of the game were that he should take the rational choice, regardless of his knowledge of the other person and the context of the situation, just based upon his ignorance. That is not what the analysis of this situation is for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMR Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 people presented the "prisoner's dilemma" as proof of altruism working. Inasmuch as the prisoner's dilemma is a completely artificial scenario with little or no relevance to reality, Objectivists should be happy to grant that it is an example of altruism working. To be an Objectivist, one need not believe that altruism is an improper philosophy for elves and pixies in fairyland, but only an improper philosophy for humans in reality. Indeed, the nature of pixies might demand altruism as strongly as the nature of human beings demands selfishness. The key to the lack of relevance of the prisoner's dilemma is not that the parties cannot communicate, but that the decision is presented in isolation from the rest of the decisions that the prisoners will make. The world of the prisoners dilemma is one in which you make one decision, and then armageddon comes and everyone's scores are added up. In our world, we make millions of decisions of varying degrees of importance, all of which influence subsequent decisions. People have to worry about more than just the immediate payoff of a particular decision. They have to worry about, for example, their health or their reputation. A real life prisoner faced with the dilemma might worry that if he screwed the other prisoner over this time, he'd make a short term gain, but other prisoners would screw him over in the future in revenge, and he'd come out worse off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 Inasmuch as the prisoner's dilemma is a completely artificial scenario with little or no relevance to reality, Objectivists should be happy to grant that it is an example of altruism working. No it's really not. You cede the moral high ground by capitulating the argument from the start. But if you'd like to explain how exactly it is, then I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 (edited) The Struggling business dilemma Technology company A Retail store B (yes, this is just as realistic as the prisoner dilemma IMO) A and B are altruistic and pay taxes: A reduces Research&Development and sacrifices future innovation, B is unable to grow due to lack of capital. A and B are selfish and avoid taxes through legal loopholes: A increases its Research&Development creating a new product which B will sell in its expanded stores. Customers will enjoy great new products at cheaper prices. It is quite a dilemma, just like the prisoner's dilemma. I regret to inform you that your example invites confusion as to what a prisoner's dilemma is. The defining characteristic of a prisoner's dilemma is that both players must reject their dominating strategy if they want to maximize social welfare (that is, the sum of their respective utility functions). Given your hypothetical example, it is unclear if this is indeed a prisoner's dilemma since you have not discussed the outcomes if the two companies played different strategies. Edited October 16, 2007 by DarkWaters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMR Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 No it's really not. What's really not? PD isn't really unrealistic, or it isn't really an example of altruism working? Or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 What's really not? PD isn't really unrealistic, or it isn't really an example of altruism working? Or what? Both. All models are unrealistic in some aspects, however that's no the problem here. This model does have applicability to real world situations the globe over, or it and concepts like it in game theory wouldn't be winning Nobel prizes. However, it's also not an example of altruism "working." Altruism is predefined into the criteria for success, utility maximization. It's rigged. Altruism works because altruism is what's defined as success. That goes nether to the realism or unrealism of the senario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMR Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 All models are unrealistic in some aspects, however that's no the problem here. Yes, but there is a difference between "Unrealistic in that the model is the result of careful abstractions to preserve the relevance of what it says while making it conceptually or computationally tractible" and "Unrealistic in that the model is nonsense." My point is that the PD is a lot closer to the second than the first. This model does have applicability to real world situations the globe over, or it and concepts like it in game theory wouldn't be winning Nobel prizes. And are we sure that the "Nobel Prize" in economics is uniformally awarded to good work? Amartya Sen got it. And I'm sure you heard that Al Gore just got the Nobel Peace Prize. However, it's also not an example of altruism "working." Altruism is predefined into the criteria for success, utility maximization. I assume you mean "total utility maximization." But even for the criteria of maximization of an individual's utility, the individuals are best served if they act to maximize the opponent's utility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.