The prisoners dilemma
The prisoners dilemma is a classic example in game theory that demonstrates why two individuals might not cooperate, even when it appears that cooperation would benefit both parties.
In the scenario, two prisoners are arrested for a crime and held in separate cells. The prosecutor offers each of them a deal: if one stays silent and the other confesses, the one who confesses will receive a reduced sentence, while the one who stays silent will face a harsher sentence. If both stay silent, the prosecutor lacks sufficient evidence to convict them on the main charge and they will receive a moderate sentence. However, if both confess, they will both receive a slightly reduced but still harsh sentence.
The dilemma arises because each prisoner has to make a decision without knowing what the other will do. If both prisoners trust each other and stay silent, they would both receive moderate sentences. However, if one prisoner believes the other will confess and therefore stays silent, they risk receiving a harsh sentence while the other prisoner receives a reduced sentence. This creates an incentive to betray the other person and confess, as it minimizes the individual's personal jail time.
The prisoners' dilemma suggests that in situations where trust and cooperation are necessary for a mutual benefit, individuals may choose not to cooperate due to the fear that the other party will betray them. This dilemma is often used to explain why individuals may not act in the best interest of the group or why cooperation is sometimes difficult to achieve.