Speedcom Financial Consulting Limited

The prisoner’s dilemma

The prisoner's dilemma is a well-known problem in game theory. It demonstrates how communication between the participants can drastically alter their best strategy.

To illustrate the kinds of difficulties that arise in two-person noncooperative variable-sum games, consider the celebrated prisoner’s dilemma (PD), originally formulated by the American mathematician Albert W. Tucker. Two prisoners, A and B, suspected of committing a robbery together, are isolated and urged to confess. Each is concerned only with getting the shortest possible prison sentence for himself; each must decide whether to confess without knowing his partner’s decision. Both prisoners, however, know the consequences of their decisions: (1) if both confess, both go to jail for five years; (2) if neither confesses, both go to jail for one year (for carrying concealed weapons); and (3) if one confesses while the other does not, the confessor goes free (for turning state’s evidence) and the silent one goes to jail for 20 years.

Superficially, the analysis of PD is very simple. Although A cannot be sure what B will do, he knows that he does best to confess when B confesses (he gets five years rather than 20) and also when B remains silent (he serves no time rather than a year); analogously, B will reach the same conclusion. So the solution would seem to be that each prisoner does best to confess and go to jail for five years. Paradoxically, however, the two robbers would do better if they both adopted the apparently irrational strategy of remaining silent; each would then serve only one year in jail. The irony of PD is that when each of two (or more) parties acts selfishly and does not cooperate with the other (that is, when he confesses), they do worse than when they act unselfishly and cooperate together (that is, when they remain silent).

PD is not just an intriguing hypothetical problem; real-life situations with similar characteristics have often been observed. For example, two shopkeepers engaged in a price war may well be caught up in a PD. Each shopkeeper knows that if he has lower prices than his rival, he will attract his rival’s customers and thereby increase his own profits. Each therefore decides to lower his prices, with the result that neither gains any customers and both earn smaller profits. Similarly, nations competing in an arms race and farmers increasing crop production can also be seen as manifestations of PD. When two nations keep buying more weapons in an attempt to achieve military superiority, neither gains an advantage and both are poorer than when they started. A single farmer can increase his profits by increasing production, but when all farmers increase their output a market glut ensues, with lower profits for all.

It might seem that the paradox inherent in PD could be resolved if the game were played repeatedly. Players would learn that they do best when both act unselfishly and cooperate. Indeed, if one player failed to cooperate in one game, the other player could retaliate by not cooperating in the next game, and both would lose until they began to “see the light” and cooperated again. When the game is repeated a fixed number of times, however, this argument fails. To see this, suppose two shopkeepers set up their booths at a 10-day county fair. Furthermore, suppose that each maintains full prices, knowing that if he does not, his competitor will retaliate the next day. On the last day, however, each shopkeeper realizes that his competitor can no longer retaliate and so there is little reason not to lower their prices. But if each shopkeeper knows that his rival will lower his prices on the last day, he has no incentive to maintain full prices on the ninth day. Continuing this reasoning, one concludes that rational shopkeepers will have a price war every day. It is only when the game is played repeatedly, and neither player knows when the sequence will end, that the cooperative strategy can succeed.

In 1980 the American political scientist Robert Axelrod engaged a number of game theorists in a round-robin tournament. In each match the strategies of two theorists, incorporated in computer programs, competed against one another in a sequence of PDs with no definite end. A “nice” strategy was defined as one in which a player always cooperates with a cooperative opponent. Also, if a player’s opponent did not cooperate during one turn, most strategies prescribed noncooperation on the next turn, but a player with a “forgiving” strategy reverted rapidly to cooperation once its opponent started cooperating again. In this experiment it turned out that every nice strategy outperformed every strategy that was not nice. Furthermore, of the nice strategies, the forgiving ones performed best.

"What is team building and how can it help my business?"

Many frustrated leaders finally ask themselves this question only after their wit's end.

This question should be the first step every leader takes when establishing a new team or redeveloping an old one.

Many business people spend half a decade in business school learning this fact. But in the real world, we rarely ask the question.

At the core, team building simply means organizing and building a culture and community of kindred spirits; individuals assembled for a common purpose or goal.

This simple concept often lulls people into thinking that building a team is simple too...

At the heart of team building is the purpose of every organization: exploiting individual and synergistic team potentials, productivity, real growth, harmony, speed, effectiveness, efficiency... GREATNESS!

Great teams make things happen!

Great teams focus on each individual's strengths while hiding their weaknesses in the strengths of others. As a team leader you facilitate your team's cohesiveness and urge the entire team forward to achieve the lofty goals.

On paper, building teams seems logical, simple and effective.

BUT, if team building is so simple and effective why does it fail so often?

Teams don't live on paper. And, as the complex creatures, we humans needlessly complicate things. The things we don't complicate - we tend to ignore entirely.

Team leaders and strategic leaders in general must constantly ask the question: "What is team Building?"😂😂

Bachelor of Science in Mortuary Science and Funeral Service | Health Professions | SIU Morticians and funeral service professionals are important members of their communities. Funerals often combine tradition, ritual, reunion, mourning and celebration. Morticians manage every part of a funeral and must be able to fulfill several roles, including informal grief counselor, salesperson,....