Yes, Prisoner’s Dilemma, but not only one-shot. You added that detail in with no attempt at justification, and it is not justifiable.
In the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma with communication possible, defecting is a pretty stupid move. I’m sure it happens in real life on occasion, but it’s the rarity and not the norm.
You can have systems that are clearly instances of PD (or at least related enough that one would use the same term) where the payoff structure makes this not so clear.
Like, oh, defecting on a cooperator yields 100 points instead of the usual 5, and the other player gets −95. Then defection becomes profitable within 33 rounds of the end, not just 2.
Also, in uncertainty or accidental defections, and it ceases to be so crazy to defect. What if you play with two other players, and can see only the total number of defections and cooperations you faced? What if you aren’t sure how many more moves there are left? What if there is a continuum from cooperation to defection?
Well, let’s get back to reality. We were talking about the way normal people think, remember?
So consider a normal person. When, in the course of his typical life, does he have to make choices in a PD situation? At work? When he’s drinking beer and watching the game with his buddies or when she’s watching a show and gossiping with her girlfriends? When looking for a mate? In relationships with parents or kids?
PD is a neat construct and certainly occurs in real life—rarely. But for your regular bloke or gal it’s a non-issue and they don’t spend time thinking in terms of a theoretical situation they don’t care about.
In the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma with communication possible, defecting is a pretty stupid move. I’m sure it happens in real life on occasion, but it’s the rarity and not the norm.
With utterly vanilla, standard rules, yes.
You can have systems that are clearly instances of PD (or at least related enough that one would use the same term) where the payoff structure makes this not so clear.
Like, oh, defecting on a cooperator yields 100 points instead of the usual 5, and the other player gets −95. Then defection becomes profitable within 33 rounds of the end, not just 2.
Also, in uncertainty or accidental defections, and it ceases to be so crazy to defect. What if you play with two other players, and can see only the total number of defections and cooperations you faced? What if you aren’t sure how many more moves there are left? What if there is a continuum from cooperation to defection?
Well, let’s get back to reality. We were talking about the way normal people think, remember?
So consider a normal person. When, in the course of his typical life, does he have to make choices in a PD situation? At work? When he’s drinking beer and watching the game with his buddies or when she’s watching a show and gossiping with her girlfriends? When looking for a mate? In relationships with parents or kids?
PD is a neat construct and certainly occurs in real life—rarely. But for your regular bloke or gal it’s a non-issue and they don’t spend time thinking in terms of a theoretical situation they don’t care about.
At this point, Emile’s post seems appopriate ( http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/kox/why_are_people_put_off_by_rationality/b71b )
Which I’ve already seen and replied to.
Looks like we hit a circle. Agree to disagree?
Your response to it was that defection risk means this one very specific thing. She said that it’s LW-shorthand for a much more general thing.
Considering that you weren’t the one originally using the term, maybe you should use the definition that makes sense?