The money is coming out of my pocket, it is not funging against any other charitable donations, and I am in favor of someone claiming the prize and using it to buy something nice that they like.
In that case, I pre-commit that if I win, I’ll spend it on something leisure-related or some treat that I otherwise wouldn’t be able to justify the money to purchase.
I co-operated; I’d already committed myself to co-operating on any Prisoner’s Dilemma involving people I believed to be rational. I’d like to say it was easy, but I did have to think about it. However, I stuck to my guns and obeyed the original logic that got me to pre-commit in the first place.
If I assume other people are about as rational as me, than a substantial majority of people should think similarly to me. That means that if I decide that everyone else will co-operate and thus I can defect, there’s a good chance other people will come to the same conclusion as well. The best way to go about it is to pre-commit to co-operation, and hope that other rational people will do the same.
Thanks for the chance to test my beliefs with actual stakes on the line :)
If you predict that majority of ‘rational’ people (say more than 50%) would pre-commit to cooperation, then you had a great opportunity to shaft them by defecting and running with their money.
Personally, I decided to defect as to ensure that other people who also defected won’t take advantage of me.
That’s the correct response when playing against rational players who are also trying to win, but if you actually look at the comments you’ll see that most people are deciding to cooperate or defect for a variety of reasons. So I think in this case cooperation is (sadly) not the best move.
Sure other survey-takers may be roughly as rational as you, but that doesn’t mean they’re likely to do something as specific as precommitting to cooperation on prisoner’s dilemmas.
The money is coming out of my pocket, it is not funging against any other charitable donations, and I am in favor of someone claiming the prize and using it to buy something nice that they like.
In that case, I pre-commit that if I win, I’ll spend it on something leisure-related or some treat that I otherwise wouldn’t be able to justify the money to purchase.
I co-operated; I’d already committed myself to co-operating on any Prisoner’s Dilemma involving people I believed to be rational. I’d like to say it was easy, but I did have to think about it. However, I stuck to my guns and obeyed the original logic that got me to pre-commit in the first place.
If I assume other people are about as rational as me, than a substantial majority of people should think similarly to me. That means that if I decide that everyone else will co-operate and thus I can defect, there’s a good chance other people will come to the same conclusion as well. The best way to go about it is to pre-commit to co-operation, and hope that other rational people will do the same.
Thanks for the chance to test my beliefs with actual stakes on the line :)
-
My reasoning on this is in complete agreement of yours.
I am not sure I follow.
If you predict that majority of ‘rational’ people (say more than 50%) would pre-commit to cooperation, then you had a great opportunity to shaft them by defecting and running with their money.
Personally, I decided to defect as to ensure that other people who also defected won’t take advantage of me.
That’s the correct response when playing against rational players who are also trying to win, but if you actually look at the comments you’ll see that most people are deciding to cooperate or defect for a variety of reasons. So I think in this case cooperation is (sadly) not the best move.
Sure other survey-takers may be roughly as rational as you, but that doesn’t mean they’re likely to do something as specific as precommitting to cooperation on prisoner’s dilemmas.
Well, I can’t argue with that. I’m editing my previous comment to reverse my previous position.