Jan 12, 2018 in Informative

Societal Dilemmas

How is the Prisoner's Dilemma affected by the relationship between Bob and Alice? Does it seem different if you view Bob and Alice as buyer and seller instead of partners in crime? What type of relationship would make Bob and Alice more likely to cooperate? This is a general question do not discuss specific relationships. Explain

Essentially, the prisoner’s dilemma is conflicted by the self-interest aspect and the group norm (Schneier, 2012). It is fundamental to note that, the relationship between Alice and Bob, affects the prisoner’s dilemma in trying to understand why each of these individuals did not choose to remain silent and get a minimum jail term. However, it is evident, that self-interest supersedes group norm (Schneier, 2012). It is notable that, the relationship between Alice and Bob will adversely change if considered under the context of a buyer and seller. It is imperative to note that, the societal pressure will compel both of them to remain honest and dedicated to the principles of buying and selling.

In a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, is the individual harmed by cooperating with the group norm? Why or why not? Do not interpret "harm" too rigidly; think more in terms of "disadvantage."

The individual cooperating with the group norm is likely to be affected if the group members are characterized by excessive self-interest (Schneier, 2012). Fundamentally, as the group urge increases in doing a certain activity, the rate of creating harm to individual increases.

In a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, is long term or short term thinking most likely to induce individual cooperation with the group norm? Explain.

In the tragedy of the Commons scenario, individual cooperation is likely to be induced by long-term thinking (Schneier, 2012). This is because proper internalization and forecasting of the future trend of an activity is a vivid way of considering options to be explored and those to be left out of the consideration plan.

Explain the difference between a zero-sum game and a non-zero-sum game.

A zero-sum game refers to a game wit finite resource or outcomes (Schneier, 2012). On the other hand, a non-sum game refers to a game where losses and wins do not add up to zero.

Schneier briefly mentions civil rights as being a result of defectors. What does he mean by this? What does it mean to be a defector in Game Theory and what circumstances might lead to a defection being beneficial?

Civil rights refers to the rights that govern the society whether at individual or in a group. A defector or defection in the game theory implies to a non-zero game where wins and losses do not add up to zero (Schneier, 2012). In essence defection in this context implies a situation where an individual losses significantly. A defection is beneficial in a game theory when an individual defects. This is because group actions stand to determine the overall result of defection, which is not beneficial.

Related essays