7,129
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第266行：
第266行： − + − 现实生活的例子 − The prisoner setting may seem contrived, but there are in fact many examples in human interaction as well as interactions in nature that have the same payoff matrix. The prisoner's dilemma is therefore of interest to the [[social science]]s such as [[economics]], [[politics]], and [[sociology]], as well as to the biological sciences such as [[ethology]] and [[evolutionary biology]]. Many natural processes have been abstracted into models in which living beings are engaged in endless games of prisoner's dilemma. This wide applicability of the PD gives the game its substantial importance. − − The prisoner setting may seem contrived, but there are in fact many examples in human interaction as well as interactions in nature that have the same payoff matrix. The prisoner's dilemma is therefore of interest to the social sciences such as economics, politics, and sociology, as well as to the biological sciences such as ethology and evolutionary biology. Many natural processes have been abstracted into models in which living beings are engaged in endless games of prisoner's dilemma. This wide applicability of the PD gives the game its substantial importance. − + − − − In [[environmental studies]], the PD is evident in crises such as global [[climate change|climate-change]]. It is argued all countries will benefit from a stable climate, but any single country is often hesitant to curb [[Carbon dioxide|{{Co2}}]] emissions. The immediate benefit to any one country from maintaining current behavior is wrongly perceived to be greater than the purported eventual benefit to that country if all countries' behavior was changed, therefore explaining the impasse concerning climate-change in 2007.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|url=http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9867020|title=Markets & Data|date=2007-09-27}}</ref> − − In environmental studies, the PD is evident in crises such as global climate-change. It is argued all countries will benefit from a stable climate, but any single country is often hesitant to curb Carbon dioxide| emissions. The immediate benefit to any one country from maintaining current behavior is wrongly perceived to be greater than the purported eventual benefit to that country if all countries' behavior was changed, therefore explaining the impasse concerning climate-change in 2007. − − − − An important difference between climate-change politics and the prisoner's dilemma is uncertainty; the extent and pace at which pollution can change climate is not known. The dilemma faced by government is therefore different from the prisoner's dilemma in that the payoffs of cooperation are unknown. This difference suggests that states will cooperate much less than in a real iterated prisoner's dilemma, so that the probability of avoiding a possible climate catastrophe is much smaller than that suggested by a game-theoretical analysis of the situation using a real iterated prisoner's dilemma.<ref>{{cite web|last=Rehmeyer|first=Julie|title=Game theory suggests current climate negotiations won't avert catastrophe|url=https://www.sciencenews.org/article/game-theory-suggests-current-climate-negotiations-won%E2%80%99t-avert-catastrophe|work=Science News|publisher=Society for Science & the Public|date=2012-10-29}}</ref> − − An important difference between climate-change politics and the prisoner's dilemma is uncertainty; the extent and pace at which pollution can change climate is not known. The dilemma faced by government is therefore different from the prisoner's dilemma in that the payoffs of cooperation are unknown. This difference suggests that states will cooperate much less than in a real iterated prisoner's dilemma, so that the probability of avoiding a possible climate catastrophe is much smaller than that suggested by a game-theoretical analysis of the situation using a real iterated prisoner's dilemma. − − Osang and Nandy (2003) provide a theoretical explanation with proofs for a regulation-driven win-win situation along the lines of [[Michael Porter]]'s hypothesis, in which government regulation of competing firms is substantial.<ref>{{cite thesis|type=paper|url= http://faculty.smu.edu/tosang/pdf/regln0803.pdf|first=Thomas|last=Osang|first2=Arundhati|last2=Nandyyz|date=August 2003|title=Environmental Regulation of Polluting Firms: Porter's Hypothesis Revisited}}</ref> − − Osang and Nandy (2003) provide a theoretical explanation with proofs for a regulation-driven win-win situation along the lines of Michael Porter's hypothesis, in which government regulation of competing firms is substantial. − + − − 动物 − Cooperative behavior of many animals can be understood as an example of the prisoner's dilemma. Often animals engage in long term partnerships, which can be more specifically modeled as iterated prisoner's dilemma. For example, [[guppy|guppies]] inspect predators cooperatively in groups, and they are thought to punish non-cooperative inspectors. − − Cooperative behavior of many animals can be understood as an example of the prisoner's dilemma. Often animals engage in long term partnerships, which can be more specifically modeled as iterated prisoner's dilemma. For example, guppies inspect predators cooperatively in groups, and they are thought to punish non-cooperative inspectors. + − [[Vampire bats]] are social animals that engage in reciprocal food exchange. Applying the payoffs from the prisoner's dilemma can help explain this behavior:<ref>{{cite book|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|title=The Selfish Gene|year=1976|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref> − Vampire bats are social animals that engage in reciprocal food exchange. Applying the payoffs from the prisoner's dilemma can help explain this behavior: − − 吸血蝙蝠是从事相互的食物交换的群居动物。应用囚徒困境收益可以帮助解释这种行为: <ref>{{cite book|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|title=The Selfish Gene|year=1976|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref> − − * C/C: "Reward: I get blood on my unlucky nights, which saves me from starving. I have to give blood on my lucky nights, which doesn't cost me too much." − * D/C: "Temptation: You save my life on my poor night. But then I get the added benefit of not having to pay the slight cost of feeding you on my good night." − * C/D: "Sucker's Payoff: I pay the cost of saving your life on my good night. But on my bad night you don't feed me and I run a real risk of starving to death." − * D/D: "Punishment: I don't have to pay the slight costs of feeding you on my good nights. But I run a real risk of starving on my poor nights." − ===Psychology=== − 心理学 − In [[addiction]] research / [[behavioral economics]], [[George Ainslie (psychologist)|George Ainslie]] points out<ref>{{cite book |first=George|last=Ainslie |title=Breakdown of Will |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-521-59694-7}}</ref> that addiction can be cast as an intertemporal PD problem between the present and future selves of the addict. In this case, ''defecting'' means ''relapsing'', and it is easy to see that not defecting both today and in the future is by far the best outcome. The case where one abstains today but relapses in the future is the worst outcome – in some sense the discipline and self-sacrifice involved in abstaining today have been "wasted" because the future relapse means that the addict is right back where he started and will have to start over (which is quite demoralizing, and makes starting over more difficult). Relapsing today and tomorrow is a slightly "better" outcome, because while the addict is still addicted, they haven't put the effort in to trying to stop. The final case, where one engages in the addictive behavior today while abstaining "tomorrow" will be familiar to anyone who has struggled with an addiction. The problem here is that (as in other PDs) there is an obvious benefit to defecting "today", but tomorrow one will face the same PD, and the same obvious benefit will be present then, ultimately leading to an endless string of defections. − In addiction research / behavioral economics, George Ainslie points out that addiction can be cast as an intertemporal PD problem between the present and future selves of the addict. In this case, defecting means relapsing, and it is easy to see that not defecting both today and in the future is by far the best outcome. The case where one abstains today but relapses in the future is the worst outcome – in some sense the discipline and self-sacrifice involved in abstaining today have been "wasted" because the future relapse means that the addict is right back where he started and will have to start over (which is quite demoralizing, and makes starting over more difficult). Relapsing today and tomorrow is a slightly "better" outcome, because while the addict is still addicted, they haven't put the effort in to trying to stop. The final case, where one engages in the addictive behavior today while abstaining "tomorrow" will be familiar to anyone who has struggled with an addiction. The problem here is that (as in other PDs) there is an obvious benefit to defecting "today", but tomorrow one will face the same PD, and the same obvious benefit will be present then, ultimately leading to an endless string of defections.+ − + − [[John Gottman]] in his research described in "the science of trust" defines good relationships as those where partners know not to enter the (D,D) cell or at least not to get dynamically stuck there in a loop. − − John Gottman in his research described in "the science of trust" defines good relationships as those where partners know not to enter the (D,D) cell or at least not to get dynamically stuck there in a loop. − − 约翰·高特曼 John Gottman在他的研究《信任的科学》中将良好的关系定义为伙伴知道不进入(背叛，背叛)牢房中或者至少不要陷入这样的动态循环关系中。 − − ===Economics=== − 经济学 − The prisoner's dilemma has been called the ''[[Escherichia coli|E. coli]]'' of social psychology, and it has been used widely to research various topics such as [[Oligopoly|oligopolistic]] competition and collective action to produce a collective good.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Axelrod|first=Robert|date=1980|title=Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma|journal=The Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=24|issue=1|pages=3–25|issn=0022-0027|jstor=173932|doi=10.1177/002200278002400101|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/fd1ab82470446bfb12c39f0c577644291027cf76}}</ref> − The prisoner's dilemma has been called the E. coli of social psychology, and it has been used widely to research various topics such as oligopolistic competition and collective action to produce a collective good. + − − − Advertising is sometimes cited as a real-example of the prisoner's dilemma. When [[cigarette advertising]] was legal in the United States, competing cigarette manufacturers had to decide how much money to spend on advertising. The effectiveness of Firm A's advertising was partially determined by the advertising conducted by Firm B. Likewise, the profit derived from advertising for Firm B is affected by the advertising conducted by Firm A. If both Firm A and Firm B chose to advertise during a given period, then the advertisement from each firm negates the other's, receipts remain constant, and expenses increase due to the cost of advertising. Both firms would benefit from a reduction in advertising. However, should Firm B choose not to advertise, Firm A could benefit greatly by advertising. Nevertheless, the optimal amount of advertising by one firm depends on how much advertising the other undertakes. As the best strategy is dependent on what the other firm chooses there is no dominant strategy, which makes it slightly different from a prisoner's dilemma. The outcome is similar, though, in that both firms would be better off were they to advertise less than in the equilibrium. Sometimes cooperative behaviors do emerge in business situations. For instance, cigarette manufacturers endorsed the making of laws banning cigarette advertising, understanding that this would reduce costs and increase profits across the industry. <ref>{{Citation needed|reason=This reference doesn't mention or support the claimed historical account.|date=December 2012}}</ref><ref>{{efn|1=This argument for the development of cooperation through trust is given in ''[[The Wisdom of Crowds]]'', where it is argued that long-distance [[capitalism]] was able to form around a nucleus of [[Religious Society of Friends|Quakers]], who always dealt honourably with their business partners. (Rather than defecting and reneging on promises – a phenomenon that had discouraged earlier long-term unenforceable overseas contracts). It is argued that dealings with reliable merchants allowed the [[meme]] for cooperation to spread to other traders, who spread it further until a high degree of cooperation became a profitable strategy in general [[commerce]]}} </ref> This analysis is likely to be pertinent in many other business situations involving advertising. <ref>{{Citation needed|reason=This doesn't sound like cooperation|date=November 2012}}</ref> − − Advertising is sometimes cited as a real-example of the prisoner's dilemma. When cigarette advertising was legal in the United States, competing cigarette manufacturers had to decide how much money to spend on advertising. The effectiveness of Firm A's advertising was partially determined by the advertising conducted by Firm B. Likewise, the profit derived from advertising for Firm B is affected by the advertising conducted by Firm A. If both Firm A and Firm B chose to advertise during a given period, then the advertisement from each firm negates the other's, receipts remain constant, and expenses increase due to the cost of advertising. Both firms would benefit from a reduction in advertising. However, should Firm B choose not to advertise, Firm A could benefit greatly by advertising. Nevertheless, the optimal amount of advertising by one firm depends on how much advertising the other undertakes. As the best strategy is dependent on what the other firm chooses there is no dominant strategy, which makes it slightly different from a prisoner's dilemma. The outcome is similar, though, in that both firms would be better off were they to advertise less than in the equilibrium. Sometimes cooperative behaviors do emerge in business situations. For instance, cigarette manufacturers endorsed the making of laws banning cigarette advertising, understanding that this would reduce costs and increase profits across the industry. This analysis is likely to be pertinent in many other business situations involving advertising. − − − Without enforceable agreements, members of a [[cartel]] are also involved in a (multi-player) prisoner's dilemma.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Nicholson|first=Walter|year=2000|title=Intermediate microeconomics and its application|edition=8th|location=Fort Worth, TX|publisher=Dryden Press : Harcourt College Publishers|isbn=978-0-030-25916-6}}</ref> 'Cooperating' typically means keeping prices at a pre-agreed minimum level. 'Defecting' means selling under this minimum level, instantly taking business (and profits) from other cartel members. [[Anti-trust]] authorities want potential cartel members to mutually defect, ensuring the lowest possible prices for [[consumer]]s. − − Without enforceable agreements, members of a cartel are also involved in a (multi-player) prisoner's dilemma. 'Cooperating' typically means keeping prices at a pre-agreed minimum level. 'Defecting' means selling under this minimum level, instantly taking business (and profits) from other cartel members. Anti-trust authorities want potential cartel members to mutually defect, ensuring the lowest possible prices for consumers. 第370行：
第316行： − + − 运动 − [[Doping in sport]] has been cited as an example of a prisoner's dilemma.<ref name="wired">{{cite journal|last=Schneier |first=Bruce |url=https://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/lance-armstrong-and-the-prisoners-dilemma-of-doping-in-professional-sports/ |title=Lance Armstrong and the Prisoners' Dilemma of Doping in Professional Sports | Wired Opinion |journal=Wired |publisher=Wired.com |date=2012-10-26 |accessdate=2012-10-29}}</ref> − − Doping in sport has been cited as an example of a prisoner's dilemma. − − − Two competing athletes have the option to use an illegal and/or dangerous drug to boost their performance. If neither athlete takes the drug, then neither gains an advantage. If only one does, then that athlete gains a significant advantage over their competitor, reduced by the legal and/or medical dangers of having taken the drug. If both athletes take the drug, however, the benefits cancel out and only the dangers remain, putting them both in a worse position than if neither had used doping.<ref name="wired" /> − − Two competing athletes have the option to use an illegal and/or dangerous drug to boost their performance. If neither athlete takes the drug, then neither gains an advantage. If only one does, then that athlete gains a significant advantage over their competitor, reduced by the legal and/or medical dangers of having taken the drug. If both athletes take the drug, however, the benefits cancel out and only the dangers remain, putting them both in a worse position than if neither had used doping. 第388行：
第325行： − + − − In [[international politics|international political theory]], the Prisoner's Dilemma is often used to demonstrate the coherence of [[strategic realism]], which holds that in international relations, all states (regardless of their internal policies or professed ideology), will act in their rational self-interest given [[anarchy (international relations)|international anarchy]]. A classic example is an arms race like the [[Cold War]] and similar conflicts.<ref>{{cite journal| title = Arms races as iterated prisoner's dilemma games | author = Stephen J. Majeski | journal = Mathematical and Social Sciences | volume = 7 | issue = 3 | pages = 253–66 | year = 1984 | doi=10.1016/0165-4896(84)90022-2}}</ref> During the Cold War the opposing alliances of [[NATO]] and the [[Warsaw Pact]] both had the choice to arm or disarm. From each side's point of view, disarming whilst their opponent continued to arm would have led to military inferiority and possible annihilation. Conversely, arming whilst their opponent disarmed would have led to superiority. If both sides chose to arm, neither could afford to attack the other, but both incurred the high cost of developing and maintaining a nuclear arsenal. If both sides chose to disarm, war would be avoided and there would be no costs. − − In international political theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma is often used to demonstrate the coherence of strategic realism, which holds that in international relations, all states (regardless of their internal policies or professed ideology), will act in their rational self-interest given international anarchy. A classic example is an arms race like the Cold War and similar conflicts. During the Cold War the opposing alliances of NATO and the Warsaw Pact both had the choice to arm or disarm. From each side's point of view, disarming whilst their opponent continued to arm would have led to military inferiority and possible annihilation. Conversely, arming whilst their opponent disarmed would have led to superiority. If both sides chose to arm, neither could afford to attack the other, but both incurred the high cost of developing and maintaining a nuclear arsenal. If both sides chose to disarm, war would be avoided and there would be no costs. − − − Although the 'best' overall outcome is for both sides to disarm, the rational course for both sides is to arm, and this is indeed what happened. Both sides poured enormous resources into military research and armament in a [[War of attrition (game)|war of attrition]] for the next thirty years until the Soviet Union could not withstand the economic cost.<ref>{{Citation|last=Kuhn|first=Steven|title=Prisoner's Dilemma|date=2019|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/prisoner-dilemma/|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Winter 2019|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=2020-04-12}}</ref> The same logic could be applied in any similar scenario, be it economic or technological competition between sovereign states. − − Although the 'best' overall outcome is for both sides to disarm, the rational course for both sides is to arm, and this is indeed what happened. Both sides poured enormous resources into military research and armament in a war of attrition for the next thirty years until the Soviet Union could not withstand the economic cost. The same logic could be applied in any similar scenario, be it economic or technological competition between sovereign states. 第406行：
第334行： − + − <font color="#ff8000">多玩家困境 Multiplayer dilemmas</font> − Many real-life dilemmas involve multiple players.<ref>Gokhale CS, Traulsen A. Evolutionary games in the multiverse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010 Mar 23. 107(12):5500–04.</ref> Although metaphorical, [[Garrett Hardin|Hardin's]] [[tragedy of the commons]] may be viewed as an example of a multi-player generalization of the PD: Each villager makes a choice for personal gain or restraint. The collective reward for unanimous (or even frequent) defection is very low payoffs (representing the destruction of the "commons"). A commons dilemma most people can relate to is washing the dishes in a shared house. By not washing dishes an individual can gain by saving his time, but if that behavior is adopted by every resident the collective cost is no clean plates for anyone. − − Many real-life dilemmas involve multiple players. Although metaphorical, Hardin's tragedy of the commons may be viewed as an example of a multi-player generalization of the PD: Each villager makes a choice for personal gain or restraint. The collective reward for unanimous (or even frequent) defection is very low payoffs (representing the destruction of the "commons"). A commons dilemma most people can relate to is washing the dishes in a shared house. By not washing dishes an individual can gain by saving his time, but if that behavior is adopted by every resident the collective cost is no clean plates for anyone. − − − The commons are not always exploited: [[William Poundstone]], in a book about the prisoner's dilemma (see References below), describes a situation in New Zealand where newspaper boxes are left unlocked. It is possible for people to [[Excludability|take a paper without paying]] (''defecting'') but very few do, feeling that if they do not pay then neither will others, destroying the system. Subsequent research by [[Elinor Ostrom]], winner of the 2009 [[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences]], hypothesized that the tragedy of the commons is oversimplified, with the negative outcome influenced by outside influences. Without complicating pressures, groups communicate and manage the commons among themselves for their mutual benefit, enforcing social norms to preserve the resource and achieve the maximum good for the group, an example of effecting the best case outcome for PD.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://volokh.com/2009/10/12/elinor-ostrom-and-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ |title=The Volokh Conspiracy " Elinor Ostrom and the Tragedy of the Commons |publisher=Volokh.com |date=2009-10-12 |accessdate=2011-12-17}}</ref> − − The commons are not always exploited: William Poundstone, in a book about the prisoner's dilemma (see References below), describes a situation in New Zealand where newspaper boxes are left unlocked. It is possible for people to take a paper without paying (defecting) but very few do, feeling that if they do not pay then neither will others, destroying the system. Subsequent research by Elinor Ostrom, winner of the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, hypothesized that the tragedy of the commons is oversimplified, with the negative outcome influenced by outside influences. Without complicating pressures, groups communicate and manage the commons among themselves for their mutual benefit, enforcing social norms to preserve the resource and achieve the maximum good for the group, an example of effecting the best case outcome for PD. − +
→Real-life examples
<br>
<br>
==Real-life examples==
==现实生活的例子==
囚犯的环境似乎是人为的，但实际上，在人类交往以及自然界的交互中有许多具有相同收益矩阵的例子。因此，囚徒困境是经济学、政治学、社会学等社会科学以及动物行为学、进化生物学等生物学研究的热点问题。许多自然过程都被抽象为生物进行无休止的囚徒困境博弈的模型。囚徒困境这种广泛的适用性让博弈变得非常重要。
囚犯的环境似乎是人为的，但实际上，在人类交往以及自然界的交互中有许多具有相同收益矩阵的例子。因此，囚徒困境是经济学、政治学、社会学等社会科学以及动物行为学、进化生物学等生物学研究的热点问题。许多自然过程都被抽象为生物进行无休止的囚徒困境博弈的模型。囚徒困境这种广泛的适用性让博弈变得非常重要。
===环境研究===
===Environmental studies===
环境研究
在环境研究中，囚徒困境在诸如全球气候变化等危机中显而易见。有人认为，所有国家都将从稳定的气候中受益，但是每一个国家通常都在限制二氧化碳排放方面犹豫不决。人们错误地认为，如果所有国家的行为都改变，任何一个国家保持目前的行为所带来的直接好处都会大于所谓的最终好处，这就解释了2007年气候变化方面的僵局。<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|url=http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9867020|title=Markets & Data|date=2007-09-27}}</ref>
在环境研究中，囚徒困境在诸如全球气候变化等危机中显而易见。有人认为，所有国家都将从稳定的气候中受益，但是每一个国家通常都在限制二氧化碳排放方面犹豫不决。人们错误地认为，如果所有国家的行为都改变，任何一个国家保持目前的行为所带来的直接好处都会大于所谓的最终好处，这就解释了2007年气候变化方面的僵局。<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|url=http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9867020|title=Markets & Data|date=2007-09-27}}</ref>
气候变化政治与囚徒困境之间的一个重要区别是不确定性; 污染对气候变化的影响程度和速度尚不清楚。因此，政府面临的困境不同于囚徒困境，因为合作的回报是未知的。这种差异表明，各国之间的合作远远少于真正的重复囚徒困境中的合作，因此避免可能发生的气候灾难的可能性远远小于使用真正的重复囚徒困境博弈论情景分析<ref>{{cite web|last=Rehmeyer|first=Julie|title=Game theory suggests current climate negotiations won't avert catastrophe|url=https://www.sciencenews.org/article/game-theory-suggests-current-climate-negotiations-won%E2%80%99t-avert-catastrophe|work=Science News|publisher=Society for Science & the Public|date=2012-10-29}}</ref>
气候变化政治与囚徒困境之间的一个重要区别是不确定性; 污染对气候变化的影响程度和速度尚不清楚。因此，政府面临的困境不同于囚徒困境，因为合作的回报是未知的。这种差异表明，各国之间的合作远远少于真正的重复囚徒困境中的合作，因此避免可能发生的气候灾难的可能性远远小于使用真正的重复囚徒困境博弈论情景分析<ref>{{cite web|last=Rehmeyer|first=Julie|title=Game theory suggests current climate negotiations won't avert catastrophe|url=https://www.sciencenews.org/article/game-theory-suggests-current-climate-negotiations-won%E2%80%99t-avert-catastrophe|work=Science News|publisher=Society for Science & the Public|date=2012-10-29}}</ref>
欧桑 Osang和南迪 Nandy (2003)提供了一个理论解释，并根据迈克尔·波特 Michael Porter的假设，即政府对竞争企业的监管是实质性的，证明了监管驱动的双赢局面。<ref>{{cite thesis|type=paper|url= http://faculty.smu.edu/tosang/pdf/regln0803.pdf|first=Thomas|last=Osang|first2=Arundhati|last2=Nandyyz|date=August 2003|title=Environmental Regulation of Polluting Firms: Porter's Hypothesis Revisited}}</ref>
欧桑 Osang和南迪 Nandy (2003)提供了一个理论解释，并根据迈克尔·波特 Michael Porter的假设，即政府对竞争企业的监管是实质性的，证明了监管驱动的双赢局面。<ref>{{cite thesis|type=paper|url= http://faculty.smu.edu/tosang/pdf/regln0803.pdf|first=Thomas|last=Osang|first2=Arundhati|last2=Nandyyz|date=August 2003|title=Environmental Regulation of Polluting Firms: Porter's Hypothesis Revisited}}</ref>
===动物===
===Animals===
许多动物的合作行为可以理解为囚徒困境的一个例子。通常动物会建立长期的伙伴关系，这种关系可以更具体地模拟为重复囚徒困境。例如，孔雀鱼成群结队地合作监察捕食者，它们被认为是在惩罚不合作的监察者。
许多动物的合作行为可以理解为囚徒困境的一个例子。通常动物会建立长期的伙伴关系，这种关系可以更具体地模拟为重复囚徒困境。例如，孔雀鱼成群结队地合作监察捕食者，它们被认为是在惩罚不合作的监察者。
吸血蝙蝠是从事相互的食物交换的群居动物。应用囚徒困境收益可以帮助解释这种行为: <ref>{{cite book|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|title=The Selfish Gene|year=1976|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>
* 合作/合作："回报：我在不幸运的晚上得到了能让我果腹的血，那在幸运的晚上我也应该分出点血，那不会花费多少。"
* 合作/合作："回报：我在不幸运的晚上得到了能让我果腹的血，那在幸运的晚上我也应该分出点血，那不会花费多少。"
* 背叛/合作："诱惑：你在我的不幸的夜里救了我，但在我的幸运夜我不会给你血，那样我会活的更好。"
* 背叛/合作："诱惑：你在我的不幸的夜里救了我，但在我的幸运夜我不会给你血，那样我会活的更好。"
* 合作/叛变："可怜者的回报：在我的幸运夜我救了你的命，但在我的不幸夜里你没有救我，我有饿死的风险。"
* 合作/叛变："可怜者的回报：在我的幸运夜我救了你的命，但在我的不幸夜里你没有救我，我有饿死的风险。"
* 叛变/叛变："惩罚：我在我的幸运夜里不必付出代价来救你，但我在我的不幸夜里有挨饿的风险。"
* 叛变/叛变："惩罚：我在我的幸运夜里不必付出代价来救你，但我在我的不幸夜里有挨饿的风险。"
===心理学===
在成瘾研究/行为经济学中，乔治·安斯利 George Ainslie指出<ref>{{cite book |first=George|last=Ainslie |title=Breakdown of Will |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-521-59694-7}}</ref>，可以将成瘾视为成瘾者现在和未来自我之间的跨期囚徒困境问题。在这种情况下，背叛意味着复发，很容易看出，目前和未来都没有背叛是迄今为止最好的结果。如果一个人今天戒了，但在将来又复吸，这是最糟糕的结果 –从某种意义上来说，今天戒瘾所包含的纪律和自我牺牲已经被“浪费”了，因为未来的复吸意味着瘾君子又回到了他开始的地方，他将被迫重新开始(这相当令人沮丧，也使得重新开始更加困难)。今天和明天复发是一个稍微“好一点”的结果，因为尽管瘾君子仍然上瘾，但他们没有努力去尝试停止。最后一种情况是，现在与成瘾斗争的任何人都会熟悉现在的成瘾行为，而在明天放弃。这里的问题是(和其他囚徒困境问题一样)，背叛“今天”有一个明显的好处，但明天这个人将面临同样的囚徒困境问题，同样明显的好处是背叛，最终导致一连串无休止的背叛。
在成瘾研究/行为经济学中，乔治·安斯利 George Ainslie指出<ref>{{cite book |first=George|last=Ainslie |title=Breakdown of Will |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-521-59694-7}}</ref>，可以将成瘾视为成瘾者现在和未来自我之间的跨期囚徒困境问题。在这种情况下，背叛意味着复发，很容易看出，目前和未来都没有背叛是迄今为止最好的结果。如果一个人今天戒了，但在将来又复吸，这是最糟糕的结果 –从某种意义上来说，今天戒瘾所包含的纪律和自我牺牲已经被“浪费”了，因为未来的复吸意味着瘾君子又回到了他开始的地方，他将被迫重新开始(这相当令人沮丧，也使得重新开始更加困难)。今天和明天复发是一个稍微“好一点”的结果，因为尽管瘾君子仍然上瘾，但他们没有努力去尝试停止。最后一种情况是，现在与成瘾斗争的任何人都会熟悉现在的成瘾行为，而在明天放弃。这里的问题是(和其他囚徒困境问题一样)，背叛“今天”有一个明显的好处，但明天这个人将面临同样的囚徒困境问题，同样明显的好处是背叛，最终导致一连串无休止的背叛。
约翰·高特曼 John Gottman在他的研究《信任的科学 the science of trust》中将良好的关系定义为伙伴知道不进入(背叛，背叛)牢房中或者至少不要陷入这样的动态循环关系中。
===经济学===
囚徒困境被称为社会心理学中的“大肠杆菌”，它被广泛用于研究寡头垄断竞争和集体行动来产生集体利益等问题。<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Axelrod|first=Robert|date=1980|title=Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma|journal=The Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=24|issue=1|pages=3–25|issn=0022-0027|jstor=173932|doi=10.1177/002200278002400101|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/fd1ab82470446bfb12c39f0c577644291027cf76}}</ref>
囚徒困境被称为社会心理学中的“大肠杆菌”，它被广泛用于研究寡头垄断竞争和集体行动来产生集体利益等问题。<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Axelrod|first=Robert|date=1980|title=Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma|journal=The Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=24|issue=1|pages=3–25|issn=0022-0027|jstor=173932|doi=10.1177/002200278002400101|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/fd1ab82470446bfb12c39f0c577644291027cf76}}</ref>
广告有时被认为是囚徒困境的一个真实例子。当香烟广告在美国是合法的时候，相互竞争的香烟制造商必须决定在广告上花多少钱。公司A的广告效果部分取决于公司B的广告效果。同样，公司B的广告带来的利润也受到公司A的广告影响。如果公司A和公司B都选择在给定的时间段内做广告，那么一家公司的广告就会抵消另一方的广告，倘若收入保持不变，费用就会因广告成本而增加。两家公司都将从广告减少中获益。然而，如果B公司选择不做广告，A公司就可以通过广告获得巨大的利益。尽管如此，一家公司的最佳广告数量仍取决于另一家公司的广告投放量。由于最佳策略取决于其他公司的选择，因此这里没有占主导地位的策略，这使得它与囚徒困境略有不同。但结果是相似的，如果两家公司的广告都少于均衡状态，他们的处境会更好。有时合作行为确实会在商业环境中出现。例如，香烟制造商支持立法禁止香烟广告，因为这将降低成本并增加整个行业的利润。<ref>{{Citation needed|reason=This reference doesn't mention or support the claimed historical account.|date=December 2012}}</ref><ref>{{efn|1=This argument for the development of cooperation through trust is given in ''[[The Wisdom of Crowds]]'', where it is argued that long-distance [[capitalism]] was able to form around a nucleus of [[Religious Society of Friends|Quakers]], who always dealt honourably with their business partners. (Rather than defecting and reneging on promises – a phenomenon that had discouraged earlier long-term unenforceable overseas contracts). It is argued that dealings with reliable merchants allowed the [[meme]] for cooperation to spread to other traders, who spread it further until a high degree of cooperation became a profitable strategy in general [[commerce]]}} </ref>这种分析可能适用于许多其他涉及广告的商业情况。<ref>{{Citation needed|reason=This doesn't sound like cooperation|date=November 2012}}</ref>
广告有时被认为是囚徒困境的一个真实例子。当香烟广告在美国是合法的时候，相互竞争的香烟制造商必须决定在广告上花多少钱。公司A的广告效果部分取决于公司B的广告效果。同样，公司B的广告带来的利润也受到公司A的广告影响。如果公司A和公司B都选择在给定的时间段内做广告，那么一家公司的广告就会抵消另一方的广告，倘若收入保持不变，费用就会因广告成本而增加。两家公司都将从广告减少中获益。然而，如果B公司选择不做广告，A公司就可以通过广告获得巨大的利益。尽管如此，一家公司的最佳广告数量仍取决于另一家公司的广告投放量。由于最佳策略取决于其他公司的选择，因此这里没有占主导地位的策略，这使得它与囚徒困境略有不同。但结果是相似的，如果两家公司的广告都少于均衡状态，他们的处境会更好。有时合作行为确实会在商业环境中出现。例如，香烟制造商支持立法禁止香烟广告，因为这将降低成本并增加整个行业的利润。<ref>{{Citation needed|reason=This reference doesn't mention or support the claimed historical account.|date=December 2012}}</ref><ref>{{efn|1=This argument for the development of cooperation through trust is given in ''[[The Wisdom of Crowds]]'', where it is argued that long-distance [[capitalism]] was able to form around a nucleus of [[Religious Society of Friends|Quakers]], who always dealt honourably with their business partners. (Rather than defecting and reneging on promises – a phenomenon that had discouraged earlier long-term unenforceable overseas contracts). It is argued that dealings with reliable merchants allowed the [[meme]] for cooperation to spread to other traders, who spread it further until a high degree of cooperation became a profitable strategy in general [[commerce]]}} </ref>这种分析可能适用于许多其他涉及广告的商业情况。<ref>{{Citation needed|reason=This doesn't sound like cooperation|date=November 2012}}</ref>
没有可强制执行的协议，卡特尔 cartel的成员国也会陷入(多玩家)囚徒困境。<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Nicholson|first=Walter|year=2000|title=Intermediate microeconomics and its application|edition=8th|location=Fort Worth, TX|publisher=Dryden Press : Harcourt College Publishers|isbn=978-0-030-25916-6}}</ref> “合作”通常意味着将价格保持在预先商定的最低水平。“背叛”意味着低于最低价格水平销售，并立即从其他卡特尔成员那里获得业务(和利润)。反垄断机构希望潜在的卡特尔成员相互背叛，确保消费者获得尽可能低的价格。
没有可强制执行的协议，卡特尔 cartel的成员国也会陷入(多玩家)囚徒困境。<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Nicholson|first=Walter|year=2000|title=Intermediate microeconomics and its application|edition=8th|location=Fort Worth, TX|publisher=Dryden Press : Harcourt College Publishers|isbn=978-0-030-25916-6}}</ref> “合作”通常意味着将价格保持在预先商定的最低水平。“背叛”意味着低于最低价格水平销售，并立即从其他卡特尔成员那里获得业务(和利润)。反垄断机构希望潜在的卡特尔成员相互背叛，确保消费者获得尽可能低的价格。
===Sport===
===运动Sport===
体育运动中的兴奋剂被认为是囚徒困境的一个例子。<ref name="wired">{{cite journal|last=Schneier |first=Bruce |url=https://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/lance-armstrong-and-the-prisoners-dilemma-of-doping-in-professional-sports/ |title=Lance Armstrong and the Prisoners' Dilemma of Doping in Professional Sports | Wired Opinion |journal=Wired |publisher=Wired.com |date=2012-10-26 |accessdate=2012-10-29}}</ref>
体育运动中的兴奋剂被认为是囚徒困境的一个例子。<ref name="wired">{{cite journal|last=Schneier |first=Bruce |url=https://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/lance-armstrong-and-the-prisoners-dilemma-of-doping-in-professional-sports/ |title=Lance Armstrong and the Prisoners' Dilemma of Doping in Professional Sports | Wired Opinion |journal=Wired |publisher=Wired.com |date=2012-10-26 |accessdate=2012-10-29}}</ref>
两名参赛运动员可以选择使用非法或危险药物来提高成绩。如果两个运动员都没有服用这种药物，那么他们都不会获得优势。如果只有一个人这样做，那么这个运动员就比他们的竞争对手获得了明显的优势，但由于法律或服用药物的医疗风险，这种优势会减少。然而，如果两名运动员都服用了这种药物，那么好处就被抵消了，只剩下风险，这使得他们的处境比没有服用兴奋剂的情况更加糟糕。<ref name="wired" />
两名参赛运动员可以选择使用非法或危险药物来提高成绩。如果两个运动员都没有服用这种药物，那么他们都不会获得优势。如果只有一个人这样做，那么这个运动员就比他们的竞争对手获得了明显的优势，但由于法律或服用药物的医疗风险，这种优势会减少。然而，如果两名运动员都服用了这种药物，那么好处就被抵消了，只剩下风险，这使得他们的处境比没有服用兴奋剂的情况更加糟糕。<ref name="wired" />
===International politics===
===国际政治===
国际政治
在国际政治理论中，囚徒困境经常被用来证明战略现实主义的一致性，这种战略现实主义认为，在国际关系中，由于国际无政府状态，所有国家(无论其国内政策或公开宣称的意识形态如何)都会为了自身的理性利益来行动。一个典型的例子是类似冷战和类似冲突的军备竞赛。<ref>{{cite journal| title = Arms races as iterated prisoner's dilemma games | author = Stephen J. Majeski | journal = Mathematical and Social Sciences | volume = 7 | issue = 3 | pages = 253–66 | year = 1984 | doi=10.1016/0165-4896(84)90022-2}}</ref>在冷战期间，北约和华约组织的对立联盟都可以选择武装或解除武装。从双方的观点来看，解除武装而对手继续武装可能会导致军事劣势和被歼灭。相反，如果选择武装而对手已经解除了武装，那么就会获得优势。如果双方都选择武装自己，那么任何一方都承担不起攻击对方的代价，但是双方都为发展和维持核武库付出了高昂的代价。如果双方都选择裁军，战争就可以避免，也不会有任何代价。
在国际政治理论中，囚徒困境经常被用来证明战略现实主义的一致性，这种战略现实主义认为，在国际关系中，由于国际无政府状态，所有国家(无论其国内政策或公开宣称的意识形态如何)都会为了自身的理性利益来行动。一个典型的例子是类似冷战和类似冲突的军备竞赛。<ref>{{cite journal| title = Arms races as iterated prisoner's dilemma games | author = Stephen J. Majeski | journal = Mathematical and Social Sciences | volume = 7 | issue = 3 | pages = 253–66 | year = 1984 | doi=10.1016/0165-4896(84)90022-2}}</ref>在冷战期间，北约和华约组织的对立联盟都可以选择武装或解除武装。从双方的观点来看，解除武装而对手继续武装可能会导致军事劣势和被歼灭。相反，如果选择武装而对手已经解除了武装，那么就会获得优势。如果双方都选择武装自己，那么任何一方都承担不起攻击对方的代价，但是双方都为发展和维持核武库付出了高昂的代价。如果双方都选择裁军，战争就可以避免，也不会有任何代价。
虽然最好的结果是双方解除武装，但是双方的理性选择是武装起来，事实也的确如此。在接下来的三十年里，双方都在军事研究和武器装备的消耗战上投入了大量的资源，直到苏联无法承受经济损失。<ref>{{Citation|last=Kuhn|first=Steven|title=Prisoner's Dilemma|date=2019|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/prisoner-dilemma/|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Winter 2019|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=2020-04-12}}</ref>同样的逻辑也适用于任何类似的情况，无论是主权国家之间的经济竞争还是技术竞争。
虽然最好的结果是双方解除武装，但是双方的理性选择是武装起来，事实也的确如此。在接下来的三十年里，双方都在军事研究和武器装备的消耗战上投入了大量的资源，直到苏联无法承受经济损失。<ref>{{Citation|last=Kuhn|first=Steven|title=Prisoner's Dilemma|date=2019|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/prisoner-dilemma/|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Winter 2019|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=2020-04-12}}</ref>同样的逻辑也适用于任何类似的情况，无论是主权国家之间的经济竞争还是技术竞争。
===Multiplayer dilemmas===
===多玩家困境===
许多现实生活中的困境牵涉到多个参与者。<ref>Gokhale CS, Traulsen A. Evolutionary games in the multiverse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010 Mar 23. 107(12):5500–04.</ref>尽管具有隐喻性，但哈丁的<font color="#ff8000">公地悲剧 tragedy of the commons</font>可以看作是囚徒困境多个参与者的一个例子: 每个村民做出选择是为了个人利益还是克制。对于一致(甚至频繁)叛变的集体回报是非常低的(代表了对“公共资源”的破坏)。大多数人可能会遇到的公地困境是在一个共用的房子里洗碗。通过不洗碗，个人可以节省时间，但如果每个居民都选择这种行为，那么集体的代价是任何人都没有干净的盘子。
许多现实生活中的困境牵涉到多个参与者。<ref>Gokhale CS, Traulsen A. Evolutionary games in the multiverse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010 Mar 23. 107(12):5500–04.</ref>尽管具有隐喻性，但哈丁的<font color="#ff8000">公地悲剧 tragedy of the commons</font>可以看作是囚徒困境多个参与者的一个例子: 每个村民做出选择是为了个人利益还是克制。对于一致(甚至频繁)叛变的集体回报是非常低的(代表了对“公共资源”的破坏)。大多数人可能会遇到的公地困境是在一个共用的房子里洗碗。通过不洗碗，个人可以节省时间，但如果每个居民都选择这种行为，那么集体的代价是任何人都没有干净的盘子。
公共资源并不总是被利用: 威廉·庞德斯通 William Poundstone在一本关于囚徒困境的书(见下文参考文献)中描述了新西兰的一种情况，信箱没有上锁。人们可以不付钱就拿报纸(背叛) ，但很少有人这样做，他们觉得如果他们不付钱，那么其他人也不会付钱，这会摧毁整个系统。2009年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆 Elinor Ostrom随后的研究认为公地悲剧过于简单化，其负面结果会受到外部影响。在没有复杂压力的情况下，团体之间为了共同利益进行沟通和管理，执行社会规范以保护资源并为团体实现最大利益，这是实现囚徒困境最佳结果的一个例子。<ref>{{cite web|url=http://volokh.com/2009/10/12/elinor-ostrom-and-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ |title=The Volokh Conspiracy " Elinor Ostrom and the Tragedy of the Commons |publisher=Volokh.com |date=2009-10-12 |accessdate=2011-12-17}}</ref>
公共资源并不总是被利用: 威廉·庞德斯通 William Poundstone在一本关于囚徒困境的书(见下文参考文献)中描述了新西兰的一种情况，信箱没有上锁。人们可以不付钱就拿报纸(背叛) ，但很少有人这样做，他们觉得如果他们不付钱，那么其他人也不会付钱，这会摧毁整个系统。2009年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆 Elinor Ostrom随后的研究认为公地悲剧过于简单化，其负面结果会受到外部影响。在没有复杂压力的情况下，团体之间为了共同利益进行沟通和管理，执行社会规范以保护资源并为团体实现最大利益，这是实现囚徒困境最佳结果的一个例子。<ref>{{cite web|url=http://volokh.com/2009/10/12/elinor-ostrom-and-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ |title=The Volokh Conspiracy " Elinor Ostrom and the Tragedy of the Commons |publisher=Volokh.com |date=2009-10-12 |accessdate=2011-12-17}}</ref>
<br>
==Related games==
==Related games==