People may ask themselves just how much assistance they would offer to someone who never helps them in return. For instance, a journalist who has received “gossip” news may give ample story coverage to the source in hopes that the source will continue “leaking” information. People want the best possible outcome from any sit

uation, and usually will cooperate with others if it means gaining something in the future. But how much do people cooperate if they know nothing will be gained? Or how much do people not cooperate if they figure it can outsmart an opponent? These questions are brought up in one particular situation -- the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

A prime example of this basic problem of cooperation and self-interest is portrayed in the case where industrial nations have trade barriers on the other’s exports. Since free trade offers many advantages, it would be better for both countries to drop any barriers. However, if only one party did this, it would encounter trade that hurt its own economy. So, whatever one country does, the other is better off retaining its own trade barriers. The problem is that each party has an incentive to keep barriers which leads to a worse outcome if both had just been willing to cooperate with the other.

When the papers were counted up the results showed that 16 people chose quarter, while 20 chose cookie. Thus, everyone lost and no one received anything. Most off the class assumed that everyone would hold in the joint cooperative arrangement. Especially since one student enforced this agreement by bringing it up to the class. But many people did not want to take the sucker’s payoff in receiving a cookie when they would rather have the quarter. Therefore, almost half the class (including myself) took the free rider approach. This broke the collective arrangement and ultimately backfired against everyone's best interests. Our professor told us that in the five years he has been conducting this experiment no one has ever gotten a cookie or quarter. It is people’s nature to choose in their own self-interest. This nature applies to many situations in life, and I found it fascinating to see this philosophical situation introduced in my psychology class.

Alternatively, what if it is the best interest of the authority to enforce joint non-confession? If the authority acts in a rational, self-interested, manner then he will not enforce single non-confessions and will make this intention known to the prisoners. Then joint non-confession will occur spontaneously, despite the lack of enforcement. This is inconsistent with the second premise that upholds the resolution of the Prisoner’s Dilemma: that enforcement of these strategies is needed to bring about a joint non-confession -- the optimal situation.

Some topics in this essay:
Prisoner’s Dilemma, Prisoner‘s Dilemma, Jennifer John, Dilemma Hobbes, Term Paper, Prisoner's Dilemma, John Jennifer, John Accordingly, Problem” XCI, Social Trapping, prisoner’s dilemma, joint non-confession, jennifer john, third party, chooses confess, prisoner's dilemma, cookie quarter, john confess, upholds resolution prisoner’s, john chooses, optimal situation, resolution prisoner’s dilemma, premise upholds resolution, enforce joint non-confession, authority enforce joint,