A game theory model illustrating how actors make decisions based on distrust and isolation from one another that leaves both worse off than if they had trusted one another and cooperated instead.
Having inspected nearly half a dozen videos, which I found them comparatively dealing with irrelevant explanations and choice of years for prisoners, put myself in a sort Prisoner's Dilemma and the best course of action I took was in your video. This is the best video on youtube on ''The Prisoner's Dilemma''. Thank You Sir.
Very well explained! I liked the way you illustrated the dilemma using box diagram. It would have been great if you could have used a real life example and showed it using a similar diagram
I've studied game theory extensively. The major problem with the dilemma is the concept of "access to information". The action of each prisoner all depends on what the officers actually tell them. If they don't tell them about the rules, i.e. if you both confess you'll get 5 years each etc, then the dilemma fails. Furthermore, how can the prisoners trust what the officers are saying? Such problems also muddy the quagmire of international politics....
Super explanation.. Thank you very much. Please keep adding your useful videos about international relations or any course you prefer.. I liked very much your methods of explanation and the topics you've chosen. They are very very helpful..)))))
Incredibly well-crafted piece; akin to a book that offered a comprehensive view. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
The only way to win this is to find a way OUT of the dilemma, meaning that you find a way to change incentives structures. For example, if both prisoners knew that the other will be able to take revenge (via relatives or friends), if betrayed, then confessing would not be so appealing anymore.
Don't know why yt just showed this to me right now, but it's pretty awesome. Definitely explains what's going on in politics since there's even less of an incentive to pick the best outcome. I mean if it's just 2 people that have know each other for a lifetime it might be more likely that neither of them is ever going to snitch even if they might get the worst penalty as a results, but that's only if both of them have nothing to lose and their bond was strong enough. Now in politics it isn't two people and it's usually a bunch of people that get voted who frequently change so overall picking the best outcome for both will inevitably be seen as weakness and there's no actual bond built between...so both heads of states usually end up picking the worst outcome or some sort of compromise in between where both sides just decide to ignore a certain subject. If applied to climate change it would pretty much be that whatever party imposes restrictions first is going to weaken their economy so then the other party can follow suit or they can just pollute all they want, issue no regulations whatsoever and profit from increased production & consumption within their country.
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
Having inspected nearly half a dozen videos, which I found them comparatively dealing with irrelevant explanations and choice of years for prisoners, put myself in a sort Prisoner's Dilemma and the best course of action I took was in your video. This is the best video on youtube on ''The Prisoner's Dilemma''. Thank You Sir.
Very well explained! I liked the way you illustrated the dilemma using box diagram. It would have been great if you could have used a real life example and showed it using a similar diagram
I've studied game theory extensively. The major problem with the dilemma is the concept of "access to information".
The action of each prisoner all depends on what the officers actually tell them. If they don't tell them about the rules, i.e. if you both confess you'll get 5 years each etc, then the dilemma fails. Furthermore, how can the prisoners trust what the officers are saying?
Such problems also muddy the quagmire of international politics....
I never understood it like this before. I read it several times but never grasped it like this before. Thanks Teacher.
thank you a lot professor, very brief. and clear presentation
Agree ! one of the best explained short video. Thank you !
Super explanation.. Thank you very much. Please keep adding your useful videos about international relations or any course you prefer.. I liked very much your methods of explanation and the topics you've chosen. They are very very helpful..)))))
Incredibly well-crafted piece; akin to a book that offered a comprehensive view. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
Many thanks, this is very insightful and helpful.
very good explanation. thank you.
nice. Sir how will you define contemporary world order? is USA a less relevant or till now uni polar? I looking for a lecture on it.
Thank you so much for simple explanation
great job; very clear
The BEST explanation on Prisoners Dilemma
The only way to win this is to find a way OUT of the dilemma, meaning that you find a way to change incentives structures. For example, if both prisoners knew that the other will be able to take revenge (via relatives or friends), if betrayed, then confessing would not be so appealing anymore.
Don't know why yt just showed this to me right now, but it's pretty awesome. Definitely explains what's going on in politics since there's even less of an incentive to pick the best outcome. I mean if it's just 2 people that have know each other for a lifetime it might be more likely that neither of them is ever going to snitch even if they might get the worst penalty as a results, but that's only if both of them have nothing to lose and their bond was strong enough.
Now in politics it isn't two people and it's usually a bunch of people that get voted who frequently change so overall picking the best outcome for both will inevitably be seen as weakness and there's no actual bond built between...so both heads of states usually end up picking the worst outcome or some sort of compromise in between where both sides just decide to ignore a certain subject. If applied to climate change it would pretty much be that whatever party imposes restrictions first is going to weaken their economy so then the other party can follow suit or they can just pollute all they want, issue no regulations whatsoever and profit from increased production & consumption within their country.
Look at wisdom. Well explained concepts. I do love your presentations
Amazing video, thank you!!!!!
Very good explanation... thank you 😊
well edplained..I like the part in most of the videos when u say "the whloe idea is""..
Thank you sir!!!
Thank you so much, it really helps me a lot😊👍👍
Thank you its really helpful
Can you provide any empirical examples?
Thank you dear teacher.
Nice episode 👌 👌
OMG this video is AMAZING!!!!!!!
nice explanation
good job thank you
Solidarity is the winning strategy.
Your videos are always helpful. Buy you have not upload any video in a while
very useful
sir you are great..
Start at 2.20....
Thanks a lot sir.you are providing us your important lecture.i am from india.u know we are poor .we have no more system to study.
I also agree U R wonderful teacher
Please add Nash equilibrium dominate strategy secure strategy etc
Thanks sir
The best😌
Thank u sir. Respect from pakistan.
if your bestfriend ples be remainds, just stay silent ahahhaha
So there is no Nash equilibrium in this ... isn't it ?
There is Nash Equilibrium. It is (5,5) where both confess. But it is not Pareto efficient.
DAFUQ??
please though yeah? that intro was too long