The Liberal Paradox

[wtfsvi]

A crucial part of the prisoner's dilemma is that the prisoners are locked away without being able to communicate with each other.

Bob would "suddenly" prefer to go if he knew Alice would go with him but not without him, because he thinks "both go" > "neither go". I don't know why that is so hard to grasp.

Of course, it's possible that Bob would feel like Alice was only saying she wouldn't go alone to get Bob to go with her. In that case, he might decide not to go. But that will be because after he feels he has been manipulated by Alice, his preferences changed. He no longer thinks "both go" > "neither go", or he would go.

edit: This is just nothing like the prisoners' dilemma. None of the prisoners think (like Alice) "we both go free > neither of us go free > only I go free > only the other guy goes free". And neither of them think (like Bob) "only the other guy goes free > both of us go free > neither of us go free > only I go free".

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
A crucial part of the prisoner's dilemma is that the prisoners are locked away without being able to communicate with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Communication isn't crucial. What's crucial is the ability to create a binding contract (with enforcable sanctions). Communication alone doesn't solve the prisoner's dilemma.

[ QUOTE ]
Bob would "suddenly" prefer to go if he knew Alice would go with him but not without him, because he thinks "both go" > "neither go". I don't know why that is so hard to grasp.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also incorrect. Bob prefers not to go when Alice goes. So he would never go as not going is his dominant strategy. No matter what Alice does he prefers not to go.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, it's possible that Bob would feel like Alice was only saying she wouldn't go alone to get Bob to go with her. In that case, he might decide not to go. But that will be because after he feels he has been manipulated by Alice, his preferences changed. He no longer thinks "both go" > "neither go", or he would go.

[/ QUOTE ]

The preferences of both Alice and Bob are common knowledge. They are a constant throughout the strategic situation.

[ QUOTE ]
edit: This is just nothing like the prisoners' dilemma. None of the prisoners think (like Alice) "we both go free > neither of us go free > only I go free > only the other guy goes free". And neither of them think (like Bob) "only the other guy goes free > both of us go free > neither of us go free > only I go free".

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a prisoner's dilemma. Try and put the normal form representation of the game on paper.

[wtfsvi]

Meh. So he could promise to go and then not go afterall. Might work in hypothetical fantasy-land, but in the real world he won't think "Alice had to go alone because I lied to her, and now she's really pissed" > "we both go".

[Borodog]

Felz,

Your entire line of argument neglects the discipline of continuous dealings. Real people in the real world arrange to live their lives as long series of iterated prisoner's dilemmas, not singe shot PDs. The proper strategy of the IPD it NOT to defect or cheat, but rather to cooperate. The first time someone cheats or defect on you, you find someone else to play the game with. Say you go to a restaurant and the food is bad, cold, and late and the waitress is rude. You ask to see the manager and he won't even comp the meal. Do you return for another iteration? I think not.

Just try tricking Alice into going to the movie and then "defecting" and not going. See how many more dates with Alice you get to play your game.

People self-arranging their lives like this producing a spontaneous incredibly complex and almost completely cooperative social order. The number of actual defections (say con men ripping someone off) is so small compared to the potential number of defects as to be miniscule.

And, of course, when the stakes of the "game" become very valuable, people do indeed turn to binding contracts.

[Misfire]

Thanks to free-market forces, the movie will be on cable in 3 months. Paradox solved.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make? Pareto optimality is a fiction that allows the psuedo-intellectuals to raise a discussion to a theoretical plane above real world practicalities, obfuscating the real meaning to their constituencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just use the word "obfuscating" while critcising people for making a discussion too inaccessible? The ironing is delicious.

[wtfsvi]

Even I know what obfuscate means, and I'm a silly foreigner.

I had to look up "clamanity", though. No hits. Made me [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] for 25 seconds before I realized what was going on and felt dumb.

[Borodog]

It's ok; you're Norwish.

[vhawk01]

Seriously guys, you both bid $1.

[Borodog]

lol