eirenicon comments on The continued misuse of the Prisoner's Dilemma - Less Wrong

29 Post author: SilasBarta 23 October 2009 03:48AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: eirenicon 23 October 2009 02:30:07PM 1 point [-]

When you write "If the others continue to cooperate, their bid is lower and they get nothing" you imply an iterated game. It seems clear from Hamermesh's account that players were only allowed to submit one bid.

Ashley won, but she didn't maximize her win. The smartest thing to do would be to agree to collude, bid higher, and then divide the winnings equally anyway. Everyone gets the same payout, but only Ashley would get the satisfaction of winning. And if someone else bids higher, she's no longer the sole defector, which is socially significant. And, of course, $20 is really not a significant enough sum to play hardball for.

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 October 2009 02:34:08PM 0 points [-]

When you write "If the others continue to cooperate, their bid is lower and they get nothing" you imply an iterated game. It seems clear from Hamermesh's account that players were only allowed to submit one bid.

Sorry for the poor phrasing. I didn't read it as an iterated game at all. That statement should instead read, "If the others nevertheless cooperate, ... "

Should I update it? How do you do the strikeout/line-through thing.