Continuing with the discussion I had yesterday, the key to the Prisoner’s Dilemma is the round of the game.
If there is only one round, it is obvious that everyone should simply choose X – since although you loose $1, it is better than being the only Y loosing $3.
If there is 10 round, except the last round, for the other 9 rounds, cooperate and having Y seems a good idea. Although by theory, there is no difference, but most people only think one step future (like this game).
If the game is running forever, or ending randomly, the best way to deal with it is always give Y. It is simply because, the others has the power to punish you if you choose to give X.
This is an interesting output from the game theory. When I relate it to all kinds of religions, it matches each other perfectly. In either Buddhism, or Christian, the story is, your life does not end as you die. There are life after that. By helping people to imagine the game is not over after you die, they artificially increased the round of the game. If my game is endless, the best way for my OWN interest is to play nicely with others.
Anatol Rapoport’s findings are so interesting. In an iterated prisoner’s dilemma, the best way to win highest personally is follow the following rules [src]:
What an amazing conclusion it is that selfish people in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma tends to end up as nice, retailing, and non-envious?
That is maybe the cornerstone of how this human society works.