You
know the bit I mean – at the end of the final show when the two
contestants who have made it all the way through have to decide whether
they will share or steal the money they have collectively won. The money
is split equally between the two players and then they each have to
secretly decide whether to keep their half and allow their opponent to
keep theirs – or make an attempt to steal the whole lot. But then comes
the tricky part, if both players agree to split then each player leaves
with half the loot but if both players attempt to steal then neither
player leaves with anything. So where is the benefit in attempting to
steal, you ask? Well, if you steal and your opponent had been willing to
share then you leave with the entire stack. Happy days!
So is there logic to this?
Most definitely there is. This edge-of-the-seat, nail biter of a scenario wasn’t thought up by some TV exec in a Channel 4 boardroom. It is in fact, a critical part of game theory which was developed in 1950 by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher while working at the RAND Corporation as part of research and analysis to the US Armed Forces. Later coined as the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ the example demonstrates with clarity why two people may still not cooperate even when it is mutually beneficial for them to do so. It was Albert W. Tucker who gave it the name and presented the following common example which is probably the most familiar with game theorists.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma?
The police arrest two men on suspicion of a crime without any evidence. At the station, they lead the men into separate rooms where they are each offered the same deal made up of the following three conditions;
1. If one man gives evidence (rats) against the other and the other stays quiet (cooperates) then the rat goes free and the co-operator receives a maximum 12 month sentence.
2. If both men keep quiet then they each receive a 1 month minor sentence.
3. If both men rat each other out then they each receive a 3 month sentence.
Each man must decide whether to rat or keep quiet and their decisions will remain confidential. Which choice should they take?
So how should I play it out?
Well the best collective scenario is for both men to keep quiet and receive a one month minor sentence each therefore receiving two months jail time collectively. The alternatives would leave them facing a collective six months or a whopping twelve months of porridge. So on the face of it, this is a no brainer. But on closer consideration, is it really? Although keeping quiet provides the opportunity for the best collective outcome, it also carries the risk of a 12 month sentence if your partner decides to stitch you up. Furthermore, what is the worst that can happen if you turn rat? The worst sentence you can face is three months and you stand a good possibility of getting off completely if your partner is more honest than you in keeping his end of the bargain.
So what if I make it on to the show?
There really is only one option to choose if you find yourself playing out the Prisoners Dilemma scenario live on TV in the final phases of The Bank Job. Steal! There is no point in doing anything else. The only way you can possibly take anything in The Bank Job by sharing is if your opponent also decides to share. But if your opponent has decided to share, then you would have walked away with twice as much if you had decided to steal anyway. The worst thing that can happen is that your opponent also attempts to steal which will leave you both with nothing – but this would have left you with nothing had you chose to share anyway so you are no worse off. There is absolutely no situation on The Bank Job where you will be better off deciding to share. It is patronising of Channel 4 to let us believe that there is reasonable choice in this, but despite this, there have still been players on this series who have decided to share the cash. And they have lost the lot their opponent who chose to steal.
So is there logic to this?
Most definitely there is. This edge-of-the-seat, nail biter of a scenario wasn’t thought up by some TV exec in a Channel 4 boardroom. It is in fact, a critical part of game theory which was developed in 1950 by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher while working at the RAND Corporation as part of research and analysis to the US Armed Forces. Later coined as the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ the example demonstrates with clarity why two people may still not cooperate even when it is mutually beneficial for them to do so. It was Albert W. Tucker who gave it the name and presented the following common example which is probably the most familiar with game theorists.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma?
The police arrest two men on suspicion of a crime without any evidence. At the station, they lead the men into separate rooms where they are each offered the same deal made up of the following three conditions;
1. If one man gives evidence (rats) against the other and the other stays quiet (cooperates) then the rat goes free and the co-operator receives a maximum 12 month sentence.
2. If both men keep quiet then they each receive a 1 month minor sentence.
3. If both men rat each other out then they each receive a 3 month sentence.
Each man must decide whether to rat or keep quiet and their decisions will remain confidential. Which choice should they take?
So how should I play it out?
Well the best collective scenario is for both men to keep quiet and receive a one month minor sentence each therefore receiving two months jail time collectively. The alternatives would leave them facing a collective six months or a whopping twelve months of porridge. So on the face of it, this is a no brainer. But on closer consideration, is it really? Although keeping quiet provides the opportunity for the best collective outcome, it also carries the risk of a 12 month sentence if your partner decides to stitch you up. Furthermore, what is the worst that can happen if you turn rat? The worst sentence you can face is three months and you stand a good possibility of getting off completely if your partner is more honest than you in keeping his end of the bargain.
So what if I make it on to the show?
There really is only one option to choose if you find yourself playing out the Prisoners Dilemma scenario live on TV in the final phases of The Bank Job. Steal! There is no point in doing anything else. The only way you can possibly take anything in The Bank Job by sharing is if your opponent also decides to share. But if your opponent has decided to share, then you would have walked away with twice as much if you had decided to steal anyway. The worst thing that can happen is that your opponent also attempts to steal which will leave you both with nothing – but this would have left you with nothing had you chose to share anyway so you are no worse off. There is absolutely no situation on The Bank Job where you will be better off deciding to share. It is patronising of Channel 4 to let us believe that there is reasonable choice in this, but despite this, there have still been players on this series who have decided to share the cash. And they have lost the lot their opponent who chose to steal.
No Amazon products found
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment