Chapter 323 (2/2)
Soon the police came and took the old lady and the middle-aged uncle to take notes. However, the old lady and the middle-aged uncle insisted that Zhang Xiaofeng had hurt her and never let go. The police had no evidence to arrest them. Zhang Xiaofeng told the police officer what he thought and the police officer told him that he could consider his suggestion.
For example, two members of a criminal gang, a and B, were arrested. They were completely separated from each other, and there was absolutely no way to exchange information with each other. At present, the police lack evidence to convict them of the main crimes they have committed. However, the police have some secondary evidence in their hands, which can give them one year for each of them on a lighter charge. So the police put forward the terms of Faust transaction to them at the same time.
In the first case, if both the old lady and the middle-aged uncle have confessed their crimes, they will each be sentenced to two years.
Second, if the old lady confesses and the middle-aged uncle does not, the old lady can be released. The middle-aged uncle will be in prison for three years, and vice versa.
In the third case, if the old lady and the middle-aged uncle do not make a confession, then each of them will be fined.
Explain more clearly. The middle-aged uncle and the old lady know the three terms of the above transaction very clearly. In other words, they know that the evidence in the hands of the police is only enough to sentence each person for one year. If there is no such transaction, they will each serve one year in prison.
With this deal, as long as both of them do not plead guilty, or as long as they are fined or sentenced to one year, there is no deterrent force for them.
It's not the first time that they have done such a thing. They are all very smart people. In other words, each of them will make decisions for the purpose of maximizing their own interests. In this game, if a criminal's choice is not to confess, then we call his choice cooperation.
OK, let's take a look at their choice. If you are an old lady, you don't know how the middle-aged uncle will choose, so you must consider the possible consequences of every choice made by the middle-aged uncle.
If the middle-aged uncle chose silence, which choice would be more cost-effective? If you are silent, you will be in prison for one year; If you make a statement, then you don't have to go to jail. So if the middle-aged uncle is silent, the old lady should choose not to confess.
If the middle-aged uncle chooses to confess, what are the consequences of your two choices? If you are silent, you will be in prison for three years; If you confess, you're going to be in jail for two years. Two years is better than three.
Therefore, no matter which choice the middle-aged uncle makes, he should know that the choice of confession is more cost-effective. Therefore, ”confession” is the only reasonable and rational choice for Party A to maximize benefits and minimize losses.
In the same way, the middle-aged uncle would choose to confess. In this way, our clever policeman will get two confessions the next morning. This no suspense ending is the only answer to the classic prisoner's dilemma. When the prisoner's dilemma is changed by other conditions, the answer will also change.
Two prisoners are forced into a miserable dilemma by this game. It is clear that there is a possibility that you and I are good, but the result is that you are not good and I am not good. The inevitable outcome is the famous Nash equilibrium.