prisoner's dilemma: two collaborators are kept in separate rooms. if both betray the other, they each serve 5 years in prison. if one betrays the other but the other stays silent, the betrayer walks free and the betrayed serves 10 years. if both remain silent, they each serve a lesser charge of 2 years in prison. in short:
- if you chose to betray, and "stay silent" wins, you walk free (you betrayed the poll majority and they stayed silent)
- if you chose to stay silent, and "stay silent" wins, you serve 2 years (lesser charge, where both stay silent)
- if you chose to betray, and "betray the other person" wins, you serve 5 years (you both betrayed each other)
- if you chose to stay silent, and "betray the other person" wins, you serve 10 years (you were betrayed by the other)
have fun!
The fun thing about the prisoner's dilemma -- not this one, but the original -- is that iirc most people did choose 'stay silent.' Even when that didn't seem like the best personal option. What they eventually found when interviewing participants afterwards was that this mostly happens as a result of empathy and mirroring. It's not necessarily that the people making a choice were enormously noble or generous, but human beings tend to assume -- lacking other information -- that other human beings are like them. Meaning that the people making choices assumed, lacking other information, that the other party would make the same choice as them. So, therefore, the best thing to do is to make the choice where both people picking the same thing yields a good result, rather than both people picking the same thing yields a bad result.
"Humans are naturally good" "humans are naturally selfish" both are false. Humans are naturally connected to other humans.