Tuesday, January 18, 2011

The Prisoner's Dilemma ptII

I have been watching http://academicearth.org/lectures/introduction-to-game-theory and I think I figured out a way to phrase what we are trying to do in our revaluation. The concept I was referring to is called dominant/dominated strategy. A strategy strictly dominates another strategy if, in all cases, regardless of another's actions, there is a better payoff. What we should do to break the dilemma, then, is to create a pure, perfectly dominant strategy. A perfectly dominant strategy would be one that, regardless of the situation, dominates all other strategies. To create this we need to change our payoff to be one that is outside of another's control, thus making others' actions irrelevant. This can be done by the promotion of the feeling of self-pride, pride in having done the action knowing the consequences. The outcome of the action is irrelevant (even if it hurts another, but this will be discussed later). What matters is that we shape our payoff to be the pride that comes with acting, not with the consequence. Cheats!

1 comment:

  1. You are proposing the opposite example of what the professor discusses in the Yale lecture, i.e. of the "indignant angel." Where as the professor decreases the payoffs because of feelings of guilt, you propose to increase your payoffs by taking pleasure in taking away payoffs from the other. So by always accusing in the prisoner's dilemma or selecting alpha as in the lecturer's example, you can be sure to manufacture a higher payoff at the expensive of the other's loss. But this is hardly, ethical.