= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JamesAndrix comments on The continued misuse of the Prisoner's Dilemma - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (68)
As a group, they'd get more money appointing just one person to bid $0.01, and splitting it after the fact.
The rules of the game forbid that.
You mean as a group they would have gotten the exact same amount of money as they in fact did.
Maybe we should call this the "socialist fallacy" - confusing a group's total benefit with the "equality" of the outcome for the group's members.
No, I don't think that's what he means. There's an ambiguity in what is meant by "joint bid" in:
If seven people bid $0.01, does the prof take $0.01 for his $20, or does he take $0.07?
I noticed early on that the problem was ambiguous in this respect. Fortunately, for the point made, about the gains from cooperation and defection, it doesn't matter: all you need is that it's possible to share in larger gains by cooperating, unless someone defects, and the professor's reaction to what happened.