Originally posted by: Intoxicator
Maybe I got this wrong but my impression from my class was that in a real world setting, even if the potential outcome from trusting the accomplice and keeping quiet is overall the best one, the safest outcome in terms of individual control is to rat the other person out. Because then if the other person also acts out of self-interest, the punishment is still less if both people rat each other out than if the individual focuses on the accomplice's trust. On re-reading maybe you're saying the same thing?
I'm supposed to poll 20 people with three sociological settings based on the prisoner's dilemma (i'm still figuring out the settings... so definitely not making you guys do my homework🤣🤣).
So, I am gonna talk about firms. In a competitive market, firms operate assuming the actions of what their competitor might do. If they just go by their individual optimal outcome, they can never be sure how it plays out in the market. So the whole point of game theory and nash equilibrium is to negate that individual optimal outcome is really the optimal outcome. There is a Nash equilibrium in between. So I think firms find out this and works accordingly. See I have hardly brushed the surface of Game Theory. I have no in depth knowledge. 😆
1k