Poll: Dilemma. What will you do to protect yourself?

[Arakasi]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

If this were a scenario whereby you stuck with the same person for more than one round, it has been found that against most strategies in at least 2 simulations that I know of, either the tit for tat strategy (whereby you simply perform A until your opponent perfoms B, then do the same back) or the tit for two tat strategie (you do the same, but you pay them back doubly) were the best two.
However in this dilema you only ever face the same opponent once, so you do not get a chance to build a reputation.

Yeah, if it's the iterated prisoners dilemma then it makes sense to cooperate until they defect. Pretty much how morality works.

I see the logic in your moves, I simply cannot share them, I also think, and I apologise for this, that your kind of person is exactly why I think humanity is not worth continuing.

Well that's a strongly worded statement, though it did make me chuckle so thanks for that. I disagree though, humanity is pretty awesome in my opinion and I hope we expand and grow far into the future

Don't you see how when you don't trust someone to cooperate you become the very thing you hate?

I don't hate those who pick B though, all humans act ultimately out of their own self-interest, even those who are altrustic act to increase their own happiness, or for self-perceived glory or future rewards in the after-life.

As you can see by my choices I would not. As a society evolved beyond the days of old, we have the chance to create a conspiracy of A's. If it weren't for people like you.
This is a result of evolution, people who pick only A are likely going to get scourned (and those who share their genes) due to the selfish dicks who pick B, not only do those who pick B against A's increase largely in the population due to the nature of the game, but A's die out entirely, leaving everyone with only 1 limb. Picking only B ends up an evolutionary stable strategy, but when a society of 1 armed, no legged people meet a society of fully limbed people, well you can tell who will win that battle.

Being a product of evolution we are almost doomed to end up being B's, unless a conspiracy of A's form. If you are't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

 

[2xDouble]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

Mathematicians... /facepalm

The scenario is not a closed system. You are putting your faith not in your fellow kidnap victims, but in the people who have kidnapped you and strapped explosives to your body. You trust that you are going to be freed if the "win conditions" are met. You trust that they will accurately report the results and not simply blow off your limb(s) and blind you because they felt like it.

Basically, if you find yourself in this situation, you are already dead. Accept that and press A because it will either free you eventually or kill you faster. (the force of three explosives powerful enough to sever or shatter limbs going off in close proximity simultaneously is enough to shatter the ribcage and severely damage the brain, not to mention losing three limbs simultaneously nowhere near a fully-equipped medical facility is going to cause lethal blood loss)

 

[blazearmoru]

Unless I'm mistaken, option 4 contradicts option 3. Option 3 is billed as the "good" result. Everyone gets released and everything is nice. However, option 4 states that if the same combination of button presses happens, only switched, everyone else is released and you're maimed horribly.

The game is rigged so that the only way out is to hope you're lucky in getting double A's three times. This isn't a true prisoner's dilemma as the odds are stacked so deeply against you that it's little more than a sadistic Saw-style no-win scenario. Poorly thought out given the inherent contradiction, I might add.

In fact, as I'm typing this, it occurs to me that if everyone in the game knows that getting three double-A's in a row gets you released, that's all anyone's going to press because they know that the other person is thinking the same thing: the other guy knows the rules, will know not to press B, since pressing be always has a bad result no matter the combination, given the contradiction in rules 3 and 4. No sane, thinking individual would ever press B.

So I'd press A, as would everyone else. Or as should everyone else, unless they're not thinking about it hard enough, which is a possibility, but that's the risk you'd have to take.

Sorry I wasn't clear. The game ends FOR YOU. Everyone else is still getting fucked.

 

[RandomMan01]

Him, such a dilemma. On one hand, if me and the other guy choose A 3 times (and I would assume if we did it once, we just do the same thing twice more to escape. However, if i choose A and the other guy picks me, I have screwed myself over and have endangered one of my loved ones. Now, if I choose B, the worst case scenario is I lose three of my four appendages. Best case scenario, I escape with my life, and have saved the people that I love from harm that could be caused if they were taken. So...I'd probably go with B.

so far 2 assholes and 4 decent humans.

Not really, some of the people who would choose B are concerned that picking A will harm their families

 

[Rawne1980]

I'd go for B and hope the other person is dippy enough to hit A.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Unless I'm mistaken, option 4 contradicts option 3. Option 3 is billed as the "good" result. Everyone gets released and everything is nice. However, option 4 states that if the same combination of button presses happens, only switched, everyone else is released and you're maimed horribly.

The game is rigged so that the only way out is to hope you're lucky in getting double A's three times. This isn't a true prisoner's dilemma as the odds are stacked so deeply against you that it's little more than a sadistic Saw-style no-win scenario. Poorly thought out given the inherent contradiction, I might add.

In fact, as I'm typing this, it occurs to me that if everyone in the game knows that getting three double-A's in a row gets you released, that's all anyone's going to press because they know that the other person is thinking the same thing: the other guy knows the rules, will know not to press B, since pressing be always has a bad result no matter the combination, given the contradiction in rules 3 and 4. No sane, thinking individual would ever press B.

So I'd press A, as would everyone else. Or as should everyone else, unless they're not thinking about it hard enough, which is a possibility, but that's the risk you'd have to take.

Sorry I wasn't clear. The game ends FOR YOU. Everyone else is still getting fucked.

You're going to have to be more specific. Are you saying that I am the only person who can get free if everyone chooses A? If OTHER people all choose A against the people they're matched against, they don't get free?

Is everyone operating under different rules? Because if so this is a completely unreliable dilemma to solve. Especially if, sitting in the chair, I don't know if the other person is operating under different rules or not. The dilemma only works if everyone involved knows the rules and is playing by the same rules.

 

[JoJo]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

If this were a scenario whereby you stuck with the same person for more than one round, it has been found that against most strategies in at least 2 simulations that I know of, either the tit for tat strategy (whereby you simply perform A until your opponent perfoms B, then do the same back) or the tit for two tat strategie (you do the same, but you pay them back doubly) were the best two.
However in this dilema you only ever face the same opponent once, so you do not get a chance to build a reputation.

Yeah, if it's the iterated prisoners dilemma then it makes sense to cooperate until they defect. Pretty much how morality works.

I see the logic in your moves, I simply cannot share them, I also think, and I apologise for this, that your kind of person is exactly why I think humanity is not worth continuing.

Well that's a strongly worded statement, though it did make me chuckle so thanks for that. I disagree though, humanity is pretty awesome in my opinion and I hope we expand and grow far into the future

Don't you see how when you don't trust someone to cooperate you become the very thing you hate?

I don't hate those who pick B though, all humans act ultimately out of their own self-interest, even those who are altrustic act to increase their own happiness, or for self-perceived glory or future rewards in the after-life.

As you can see by my choices I would not. As a society evolved beyond the days of old, we have the chance to create a conspiracy of A's. If it weren't for people like you.
This is a result of evolution, people who pick only A are likely going to get scourned (and those who share their genes) due to the selfish dicks who pick B, not only do those who pick B against A's increase largely in the population due to the nature of the game, but A's die out entirely, leaving everyone with only 1 limb. Picking only B ends up an evolutionary stable strategy, but when a society of 1 armed, no legged people meet a society of fully limbed people, well you can tell who will win that battle.

Being a product of evolution we are almost doomed to end up being B's, unless a conspiracy of A's form. If you are't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

No society would be cheat-proof unless it's people had no free will, and so I'd rather live in society where people have the freedom to be B's, even if that makes the society weaker in some way.

And yes, even those who chose A would be acting in their own self-interest as it would be protecting their perceived moral self-image, or protecting themselves from guilt, or keeping their place in heaven according to their beliefs etc.

snip

Hey, it is a hypothetical scenario, I highly doubt any terrorists (unless they're maths students?) will be kidnapping people to put them through the prisoners dilemma. You're usually meant to just go along with the options and ignore any gaping holes or common sense ;-)

 

[FoolKiller]

so far 2 assholes and 4 selfish morons

There. I fixed it for you.

Just because I'm not dumb enough to risk dragging my loved ones into this doesn't make me an asshole. Also, anyone picking A has just seen how many pick B so logically from here on out, you should all pick B. We may all get screwed over while playing the game, but we're not dragging others into it. Choosing A is playing Russian Roulette with your loved ones.

Also, what is with all the Saw-like games these days. Especially some of the ones with arbitrary rules?

 

[Arakasi]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

If this were a scenario whereby you stuck with the same person for more than one round, it has been found that against most strategies in at least 2 simulations that I know of, either the tit for tat strategy (whereby you simply perform A until your opponent perfoms B, then do the same back) or the tit for two tat strategie (you do the same, but you pay them back doubly) were the best two.
However in this dilema you only ever face the same opponent once, so you do not get a chance to build a reputation.

Yeah, if it's the iterated prisoners dilemma then it makes sense to cooperate until they defect. Pretty much how morality works.

I see the logic in your moves, I simply cannot share them, I also think, and I apologise for this, that your kind of person is exactly why I think humanity is not worth continuing.

Well that's a strongly worded statement, though it did make me chuckle so thanks for that. I disagree though, humanity is pretty awesome in my opinion and I hope we expand and grow far into the future

Don't you see how when you don't trust someone to cooperate you become the very thing you hate?

I don't hate those who pick B though, all humans act ultimately out of their own self-interest, even those who are altrustic act to increase their own happiness, or for self-perceived glory or future rewards in the after-life.

As you can see by my choices I would not. As a society evolved beyond the days of old, we have the chance to create a conspiracy of A's. If it weren't for people like you.
This is a result of evolution, people who pick only A are likely going to get scourned (and those who share their genes) due to the selfish dicks who pick B, not only do those who pick B against A's increase largely in the population due to the nature of the game, but A's die out entirely, leaving everyone with only 1 limb. Picking only B ends up an evolutionary stable strategy, but when a society of 1 armed, no legged people meet a society of fully limbed people, well you can tell who will win that battle.

Being a product of evolution we are almost doomed to end up being B's, unless a conspiracy of A's form. If you are't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

No society would be cheat-proof unless it's people had no free will, and so I'd rather live in society where people have the freedom to be B's, even if that makes the society weaker in some way.

And yes, even those who chose A would be acting in their own self-interest as it would be protecting their perceived moral self-image, or protecting themselves from guilt, or keeping their place in heaven according to their beliefs etc.

I have no need for a moral self image, I don't believe in heaven, or any afterlife.
I do it only because I percieve it to be the only right thing to do.
However I am, in essence, evolutionarily maladaptive in this sense.

Also I would not suggest using the terms free will and freedom interchangably.

 

[itsthesheppy]

It's amazing to me how few people have this figured out, and maybe lends credence to this game only by relying on the inability of others to think critically.

Option B is always bad. No matter who picks it, option B always ends up with somebody getting maimed. It might be you, or it might be the other person, but no matter what, option B ends in blood.

This is why this scenario fails at a prisoner's dilemma. The dilemma is supposed to be deciding whether or not the other person is the type to screw you over for maximum selfish profit. You're either both nice and share, one's a dick and gets everything, or both are dicks and both get nothing.

However, this dilemma has an option where if both parties choose A then both parties receive maximum profit. No sharing. Everyone wins. Get the double-A result three times and you're released. So long as everyone chooses A every time, you get freed. Assuming the rules apply for everyone, that's all everyone needs to do. There's never a need to press B! Never.

According to the rules, option B always ends with someone getting maimed. There is no scenario where B is pressed and everything works out, unless the rule 3 and 4 contradiction represents an exception to the rule in the case of one of the participants in which case the scenario fails as a fair dilemma.

 

[Arakasi]

I choose option D: Subvert expectation, escape & kill everyone involved. Turn Prisoners dilema into Kobayashi Maru.

Seriously, when given a no win situation, change the rules.

But there is a win-win situation.
It's called only picking A.

 

[Arakasi]

It's amazing to me how few people have this figured out, and maybe lends credence to this game only by relying on the inability of others to think critically.

Option B is always bad. No matter who picks it, option B always ends up with somebody getting maimed. It might be you, or it might be the other person, but no matter what, option B ends in blood.

This is why this scenario fails at a prisoner's dilemma. The dilemma is supposed to be deciding whether or not the other person is the type to screw you over for maximum selfish profit. You're either both nice and share, one's a dick and gets everything, or both are dicks and both get nothing.

However, this dilemma has an option where if both parties choose A then both parties receive maximum profit. No sharing. Everyone wins. Get the double-A result three times and you're released. So long as everyone chooses A every time, you get freed. Assuming the rules apply for everyone, that's all everyone needs to do. There's never a need to press B! Never.

According to the rules, option B always ends with someone getting maimed. There is no scenario where B is pressed and everything works out, unless the rule 3 and 4 contradiction represents an exception to the rule in the case of one of the participants in which case the scenario fails as a fair dilemma.

No it still fits the prisoner's dilema, because you see, if you pick B and screw over an A then not only you are freed, but your entire family/friends are granted immunity. That is clearly maximum profit over simply escaping with your own life.
However I do agree with the rest of your statments. A is the only right option.

 

[JoJo]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

If this were a scenario whereby you stuck with the same person for more than one round, it has been found that against most strategies in at least 2 simulations that I know of, either the tit for tat strategy (whereby you simply perform A until your opponent perfoms B, then do the same back) or the tit for two tat strategie (you do the same, but you pay them back doubly) were the best two.
However in this dilema you only ever face the same opponent once, so you do not get a chance to build a reputation.

Yeah, if it's the iterated prisoners dilemma then it makes sense to cooperate until they defect. Pretty much how morality works.

I see the logic in your moves, I simply cannot share them, I also think, and I apologise for this, that your kind of person is exactly why I think humanity is not worth continuing.

Well that's a strongly worded statement, though it did make me chuckle so thanks for that. I disagree though, humanity is pretty awesome in my opinion and I hope we expand and grow far into the future

Don't you see how when you don't trust someone to cooperate you become the very thing you hate?

I don't hate those who pick B though, all humans act ultimately out of their own self-interest, even those who are altrustic act to increase their own happiness, or for self-perceived glory or future rewards in the after-life.

As you can see by my choices I would not. As a society evolved beyond the days of old, we have the chance to create a conspiracy of A's. If it weren't for people like you.
This is a result of evolution, people who pick only A are likely going to get scourned (and those who share their genes) due to the selfish dicks who pick B, not only do those who pick B against A's increase largely in the population due to the nature of the game, but A's die out entirely, leaving everyone with only 1 limb. Picking only B ends up an evolutionary stable strategy, but when a society of 1 armed, no legged people meet a society of fully limbed people, well you can tell who will win that battle.

Being a product of evolution we are almost doomed to end up being B's, unless a conspiracy of A's form. If you are't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

No society would be cheat-proof unless it's people had no free will, and so I'd rather live in society where people have the freedom to be B's, even if that makes the society weaker in some way.

And yes, even those who chose A would be acting in their own self-interest as it would be protecting their perceived moral self-image, or protecting themselves from guilt, or keeping their place in heaven according to their beliefs etc.

I have no need for a moral self image, I don't believe in heaven, or any afterlife.
I do it only because I percieve it to be the only right thing to do.
However I am, in essence, evolutionarily maladaptive in this sense.

Also I would not suggest using the terms free will and freedom interchangably.

So tell me, what is your reason for doing something because it is the "right thing" to do?

 

[itsthesheppy]

The thing is, though, that if you choose A, maybe your family and friends get nabbed. Well, all they need to do is press A as well, and then they'll be freed. So I dunno, you get out, send them all texts that say "Press A" or whatever.

The point is if you break it down visually, I think everyone could get the obvious choice really quick.

A + A = Everyone wins, every time!

B + A = Almost everyone wins, other guy gets maimed.

A + B = You get maimed, everyone else wins.

B + B = Both maimed, nobody wins.

B always features people getting maimed. Always. But if everyone chooses A, every time, everyone gets maximum profit. The prisoner's dilemma is not supposed to feature and "everyone wins with maximum profit" scenario, because if it did, the choice would be obvious. As it is here. Only a sociopath or someone who has not thought hard enough about it would ever choose B.

And even if you do get paired with a simpleton, then you're screwed, but hey, everyone else gets freed. So your sacrifice is not in vain.

Unless the OP comes forward with more rule changes to fix his goofy dilemma, I think I went ahead and solved it.

 

[Arakasi]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

If this were a scenario whereby you stuck with the same person for more than one round, it has been found that against most strategies in at least 2 simulations that I know of, either the tit for tat strategy (whereby you simply perform A until your opponent perfoms B, then do the same back) or the tit for two tat strategie (you do the same, but you pay them back doubly) were the best two.
However in this dilema you only ever face the same opponent once, so you do not get a chance to build a reputation.

Yeah, if it's the iterated prisoners dilemma then it makes sense to cooperate until they defect. Pretty much how morality works.

I see the logic in your moves, I simply cannot share them, I also think, and I apologise for this, that your kind of person is exactly why I think humanity is not worth continuing.

Well that's a strongly worded statement, though it did make me chuckle so thanks for that. I disagree though, humanity is pretty awesome in my opinion and I hope we expand and grow far into the future

Don't you see how when you don't trust someone to cooperate you become the very thing you hate?

I don't hate those who pick B though, all humans act ultimately out of their own self-interest, even those who are altrustic act to increase their own happiness, or for self-perceived glory or future rewards in the after-life.

As you can see by my choices I would not. As a society evolved beyond the days of old, we have the chance to create a conspiracy of A's. If it weren't for people like you.
This is a result of evolution, people who pick only A are likely going to get scourned (and those who share their genes) due to the selfish dicks who pick B, not only do those who pick B against A's increase largely in the population due to the nature of the game, but A's die out entirely, leaving everyone with only 1 limb. Picking only B ends up an evolutionary stable strategy, but when a society of 1 armed, no legged people meet a society of fully limbed people, well you can tell who will win that battle.

Being a product of evolution we are almost doomed to end up being B's, unless a conspiracy of A's form. If you are't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

No society would be cheat-proof unless it's people had no free will, and so I'd rather live in society where people have the freedom to be B's, even if that makes the society weaker in some way.

And yes, even those who chose A would be acting in their own self-interest as it would be protecting their perceived moral self-image, or protecting themselves from guilt, or keeping their place in heaven according to their beliefs etc.

I have no need for a moral self image, I don't believe in heaven, or any afterlife.
I do it only because I percieve it to be the only right thing to do.
However I am, in essence, evolutionarily maladaptive in this sense.

Also I would not suggest using the terms free will and freedom interchangably.

So tell me, what is your reason for doing something because it is the "right thing" to do?

A mix of upbringing and genetic predispositions, just like everything else.

 

[blazearmoru]

Unless I'm mistaken, option 4 contradicts option 3. Option 3 is billed as the "good" result. Everyone gets released and everything is nice. However, option 4 states that if the same combination of button presses happens, only switched, everyone else is released and you're maimed horribly.

The game is rigged so that the only way out is to hope you're lucky in getting double A's three times. This isn't a true prisoner's dilemma as the odds are stacked so deeply against you that it's little more than a sadistic Saw-style no-win scenario. Poorly thought out given the inherent contradiction, I might add.

In fact, as I'm typing this, it occurs to me that if everyone in the game knows that getting three double-A's in a row gets you released, that's all anyone's going to press because they know that the other person is thinking the same thing: the other guy knows the rules, will know not to press B, since pressing be always has a bad result no matter the combination, given the contradiction in rules 3 and 4. No sane, thinking individual would ever press B.

So I'd press A, as would everyone else. Or as should everyone else, unless they're not thinking about it hard enough, which is a possibility, but that's the risk you'd have to take.

Sorry I wasn't clear. The game ends FOR YOU. Everyone else is still getting fucked.

You're going to have to be more specific. Are you saying that I am the only person who can get free if everyone chooses A? If OTHER people all choose A against the people they're matched against, they don't get free?

Is everyone operating under different rules? Because if so this is a completely unreliable dilemma to solve. Especially if, sitting in the chair, I don't know if the other person is operating under different rules or not. The dilemma only works if everyone involved knows the rules and is playing by the same rules.

Someone was confused when I said "the game ends" instead of "you are freed". The rest should be normal... Everyone else is operating under the same rules.

 

[blazearmoru]

The thing is, though, that if you choose A, maybe your family and friends get nabbed. Well, all they need to do is press A as well, and then they'll be freed. So I dunno, you get out, send them all texts that say "Press A" or whatever.

The point is if you break it down visually, I think everyone could get the obvious choice really quick.

A + A = Everyone wins, every time!

B + A = Almost everyone wins, other guy gets maimed.

A + B = You get maimed, everyone else wins.

B + B = Both maimed, nobody wins.

B always features people getting maimed. Always. But if everyone chooses A, every time, everyone gets maximum profit. The prisoner's dilemma is not supposed to feature and "everyone wins with maximum profit" scenario, because if it did, the choice would be obvious. As it is here. Only a sociopath or someone who has not thought hard enough about it would ever choose B.

And even if you do get paired with a simpleton, then you're screwed, but hey, everyone else gets freed. So your sacrifice is not in vain.

Unless the OP comes forward with more rule changes to fix his goofy dilemma, I think I went ahead and solved it.

D:< I didn't change the rules. I clarified it once cus someone thought when I said "the game ends" it meant something other than "you are freed"

also why do you deal with "all ins"? there is an amount of loss here.
Finally. If you press A and get mauled, and then magically, without eyes or arms or anything, tell your most loved person to get press A and get mauled too... I fail to see exactly how that's a good thing... :|

 

[itsthesheppy]

The thing is, though, that if you choose A, maybe your family and friends get nabbed. Well, all they need to do is press A as well, and then they'll be freed. So I dunno, you get out, send them all texts that say "Press A" or whatever.

The point is if you break it down visually, I think everyone could get the obvious choice really quick.

A + A = Everyone wins, every time!

B + A = Almost everyone wins, other guy gets maimed.

A + B = You get maimed, everyone else wins.

B + B = Both maimed, nobody wins.

B always features people getting maimed. Always. But if everyone chooses A, every time, everyone gets maximum profit. The prisoner's dilemma is not supposed to feature and "everyone wins with maximum profit" scenario, because if it did, the choice would be obvious. As it is here. Only a sociopath or someone who has not thought hard enough about it would ever choose B.

And even if you do get paired with a simpleton, then you're screwed, but hey, everyone else gets freed. So your sacrifice is not in vain.

Unless the OP comes forward with more rule changes to fix his goofy dilemma, I think I went ahead and solved it.

D:< I didn't change the rules. I clarified it once cus someone thought when I said "the game ends" it meant something other than "you are freed"

If everyone is operating under the same rules, then if everyone chooses A every time, nobody gets maimed and everyone eventually goes free. It's a prisoner's dilemma with a "maximum profit" option for all participants, where the only risk is being paired with some kind of moron. So, not really a prisoner's dilemma at all.

I solved your scenario. I'll accept my prize in the form of snack-sized Gardetto's packets, please and thank you.