07-14-2016, 05:25 AM
For those not familiar the Prisoner's Dilemma is as follows: 2 criminals are arrested for the same crime and placed in different rooms. If person A implicates person B, then person B will be tried for the crime and serve 4 years and A will go free. If they each implicate the other, they each serve 3 years. But if neither implicates the other, the lack of evidence will result in both being set free. The best scenario for "self" is to implicate the other, as it's possible to serve a reduced number of years or possibly go free. The best scenario for the "group" is to not talk as they might each go free.
I will very much be simplifying The Invisible Hand, when I say it means: By acting in ones best "self" interests, the "group" benefits.
Maybe the reason these two clash it's possible we aren't dealing with an apples to apples comparison. But it's an interesting contradiction....or maybe it's not. Would anyone care to offer an opinion? Post below.