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

[blazearmoru]

Everyone must of came across the prisoner's dilemma like this by now, but what are your answers?

You wake up only to notice that you're chained to a chair. You hear voices around you but you are unable to turn your head, or any part of your body except your hands. There a monitor in front of you. The monitor is off and in it's reflection you see what looks like bombs strapped on your arms and legs. The monitor then turns on explaining a set of rules to this game.

You will be matched up with one of the many random people held captive, and behind the monitor you won't know who it is it. It may be a stranger, a friend, or even a family member. There will be three matchings total. After the third matching, you will be drugged and taken back to your house where you will be freed.
There is no way to communicate, only two buttons: option "A" and option "B".

A:A
1. If both of you choose option A, nothing happens and each of you will be matched with another person after a short break.

B:B
2. If both of you choose option B, each of you will lose a limb. First one leg, then the other leg, finally your arm of choice. After losing a limb you will have a short break before being matched with another person.

B:A
3. If you chose option B whilst the person on the other side of the monitor chooses option A, this game ends, no more matching and as an added bonus, all of your friends and relatives currently in this game are released as well as all of you are given the promise of never being bothered by this game, again. This includes those not currently participating this game.

A:B
4. If you chose option A whilst the person on the other side of the monitor chooses option B, this game ends, no more matching except... and you lose all your limbs, and then blinded as a bonus, before being released. Finally a single relative or friend, your closest will be participating in this game if this is the outcome.

5. Not answering will be the same as #4 regardless of the other person's choices.

What will your first choice be? Though it is interesting to know what everyone's following choices will be but that would be difficult to simulate, so what would your choice be?

EDIT: There seems to be some confusion.

Opponent switches per round. When I say game ends, I mean game ends for you

If you choose A, you have to get lucky 3 times to be freed. If at any single one time the other guy chooses B whilst you choose A, you have not only doomed yourself but the closest person in your heart will be forced into this game as well.
If you choose B, at any time if the other guy chooses A, you are immediately freed. Your friends and family that are participating are freed. On top of that, all friends and family will also be safe from the game for the rest of their life.

Edit 2: I really wonder how it would look like if there was a positive reward for choosing B if opponent chooses A... hmm (I haven't changed the damn rules ! D:<)

 

[Jedoro]

All I've really got in this situation is hope that everyone just keeps choosing A so we can all be free after three turns. I might get the asshole who chooses B when I choose A, but it's not like there's anything I can do about that. Human decency in such a situation is foolish to count on, but I've no intent to harm anyone but the person who dragged me into this game.

 

[JoJo]

I know generally in a prisoner's dilemma the best choice is to defect (in this case B) each time, however the penalty in this case if you both defect (losing a limb) is pretty steep. Basically your two choices are:

Choose A all three times and if you're lucky, you won't get screwed over and will be released unharmed, if you're unlucky though you'll be limbless and blinded

Choose B all three times and if you're lucky, you'll be let off free unharmed, if you're unlucky though you'll lose three of your limbs at the most

From a purely selfish POV therefore, B is the safest option as the maximum penalty of losing three limbs isn't as bad as the other penalty. In a real life situation though I'm not sure I could bring it on myself to doom a co-operative A presser to such a fate, so scratch me up for unsure, though leaning towards B.

 

[blazearmoru]

I know generally in a prisoner's dilemma the best choice is to defect (in this case B) each time, however the penalty in this case if you both defect (losing a limb) is pretty steep. Basically your two choices are:

Choose A all three times and if you're lucky, you won't get screwed over and will be released unharmed, if you're unlucky though you'll be limbless and blinded

Choose B all three times and if you're lucky, you'll be let off free unharmed, if you're unlucky though you'll lose three of your limbs at the most

From a purely selfish POV therefore, B is the safest option as the maximum penalty of losing three limbs isn't as bad as the other penalty. In a real life situation though I'm not sure I could bring it on myself to doom a co-operative A presser to such a fate, so scratch me up for unsure, though leaning towards B.

If you finish reading it, if you choose B and get lucky the first time, you're free and anyone who basically has any ties with you are out, permanently. If you choose A and don't get lucky, you just doomed your closest person to the exact same game.

 

[JoJo]

I know generally in a prisoner's dilemma the best choice is to defect (in this case B) each time, however the penalty in this case if you both defect (losing a limb) is pretty steep. Basically your two choices are:

Choose A all three times and if you're lucky, you won't get screwed over and will be released unharmed, if you're unlucky though you'll be limbless and blinded

Choose B all three times and if you're lucky, you'll be let off free unharmed, if you're unlucky though you'll lose three of your limbs at the most

From a purely selfish POV therefore, B is the safest option as the maximum penalty of losing three limbs isn't as bad as the other penalty. In a real life situation though I'm not sure I could bring it on myself to doom a co-operative A presser to such a fate, so scratch me up for unsure, though leaning towards B.

If you finish reading it, if you choose B and get lucky the first time, you're free and anyone who basically has any ties with you are out, permanently. If you choose A and don't get lucky, you just doomed your closest person to the exact same game.

Well that ensures it then, B it is for me. There's not really any benefits to A other than your opponent doesn't get screwed over and chances are one of your opponents will try to screw you over too.

 

[Keoul]

so far 2 assholes and 4 decent humans.
I'd totally go for A, Loss of limbs and eyesight probably won't bother me that much, I say that because I already have degrading eye sight and the loss of all my limbs would just leave me as a worm-human so I'll have to wiggle everywhere.
Besides, this guy looks pretty happy without em.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

A, obviously. Who in their right mind wouldn't choose A? Everyone gets to go free, and we can find the psycopath who chained us up and beat the crap out of him with our fully functioning limbs.

 

[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.

 

[blazearmoru]

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.

A, obviously. Who in their right mind wouldn't choose A? Everyone gets to go free, and we can find the psycopath who chained us up and beat the crap out of him with our fully functioning limbs.

For one, people who worry about their children or their wives might refrain from forcing them into the same position as themselves.

 

[Angie7F]

I just wouldnt want to drag another person into the game.

 

[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.

A, obviously. Who in their right mind wouldn't choose A? Everyone gets to go free, and we can find the psycopath who chained us up and beat the crap out of him with our fully functioning limbs.

For one, people who worry about their children or their wives might refrain from forcing them into the same position as themselves.

So to assume that someone will do B thereby doing B is the right thing to do?
That's fucking stupid, and unforgivable.

 

[JoJo]

so far 2 assholes and 4 decent humans.

If you're going to insult us for our choice, at-least have the guts to quote one of us when you do it.

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.

 

[Arakasi]

so far 2 assholes and 4 decent humans.

If you're going to insult us for our choice, at-least have the guts to quote one of us when you do it.

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.

EDIT: Now that I see the poll my newfound faith in humanity is vastly deteriorating. I guess I was right before, still wouldn't stop me from picking only A though.

 

[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.

 

[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. 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.

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

 

[The_Scrivener]

It's interesting that the Prisoner's Dilemma thought experiment has not only grown in popularity in post-9/11 terror-obsessed society, but that it now reflects terrorist method/culture.

 

[Arakasi]

It's interesting that the Prisoner's Dilemma thought experiment has not only grown in popularity in post-9/11 terror-obsessed society, but that it now reflects terrorist method/culture.

Mind elaborating?
I don't see it.

 

[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.

 

[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.