Nash Equillibrium and the 'Prisoner's Dilemma'

[eriatarka]

The problem with prisoner's dilemma as an analysis of economic behavior is it tricks one into thinking that the trading is between the two prisoners.

(...)

What do you know? Free markets do "work!"

Its possible to find real life examples where prisoner dilemma situations actually hold though. One example is driving in big cities - individually, most people would rather use their car than take public transport, and the result is extreme traffic congestion where it takes hours (and an unpleasant drive) to get anywhere. We'd all be better off if people only used cars in cities for journeys which were actualy important, but as soon as the roads stopped being congested everyone would try and 'optimise their utility' by using their car for unimportant stuff since the traffic level had dropped, and youd immediately have congestion again. This is (rightly or wrongly) why congestion charges get proposed, to try and discourage people from clogging up the roads with frivolous journeys. Edited June 26, 2008 by eriatarka

[EC]

Its possible to find real life examples where prisoner dilemma situations actually hold though. One example is driving in big cities - individually, most people would rather use their car than take public transport, and the result is extreme traffic congestion where it takes hours (and an unpleasant drive) to get anywhere. We'd all be better off if people only used cars in cities for journeys which were actualy important, but as soon as the roads stopped being congested everyone would try and 'optimise their utility' by using their car for unimportant stuff since the traffic level had dropped, and youd immediately have congestion again. This is (rightly or wrongly) why congestion charges get proposed, to try and discourage people from clogging up the roads with frivolous journeys.

This is quite a bit assertion based on faulty premises. The reason most people would rather drive in their own car versus a stinky public bus is that there own vehicle will get them where they want to go faster and in a more convienient manner. Imagine waiting 20 minutes or whatever to take a bus to get your groceries, then having to carry them with you and wait for the next bus, along with the extra walking involved with heavy bags. In most situations public transportation is simply inefficient.

And "frivolous journeys", what about people who just love to drive around in their fresh new ride bumpin' there system. Should that person not be able to enjoy what he considers an enjoyable activity because you or others consider his vehicle usage "frivolous"? Get real.

Edited June 26, 2008 by EC

[eriatarka]

This is quite a bit assertion based on faulty premises. The reason most people would rather drive in their own car versus a stinky public bus is that there own vehicle will get them where they want to go faster and in a more convienient manner.

It isnt faster or more convenient when the roads are totally congested and you cant move, thats the point

And "frivolous journeys", what about people who just love to drive around in their fresh new ride bumpin' there system. Should that person not be able to enjoy what he considers an enjoyable activity because you or others consider his vehicle usage "frivolous"?

If hes doing it in the city centre then yeah. We have suburbs/countryside for that sort of thing. Edited June 26, 2008 by eriatarka

[DarkWaters]

Its possible to find real life examples where prisoner dilemma situations actually hold though. One example is driving in big cities - individually, most people would rather use their car than take public transport, and the result is extreme traffic congestion where it takes hours (and an unpleasant drive) to get anywhere.

Technically speaking, the scenario you described is not necessarily a Prisoner's Dilemma. It is only a Prisoner's Dilemma if every single driver would rather be on the maximally congested road (possibly resulting in gridlock) as opposed to being the one person to use public transportation.

A defining characteristic of a Prisoner's Dilemma game (in terms of mathematics) is that "social welfare" (again, the math term meaning the sum of each individual player's utility function) is maximized if each player rejects his dominating strategy. This is not the case here unless if we have the above assumption.

[DavidOdden]

A rational "player" will remain silent. Not for the rules or consequences of the "game", but because he is rational. "A rational man sees his interests in terms of a lifetime and selects his goals accordingly." "Integrity does not consist of loyalty to one's subjective whims, but of loyalty to rational principles."

A rational "player" would confess to his crime, not remaining silent. That is the relevant adherence to rational principles -- justice.