THINKER'S ALMANAC - October 26

How does the prisoners’ dilemma help us understand doping in sports?

Subject: Prisoners’ Dilemma - Lance Armstrong

Event:  Wired publishes article on doping, 2012

The virtues are lost in self-interest as rivers are lost in the sea. -Franklin D. Roosevelt

The prisoners’ dilemma is a classic thought experiment that comes out of the field of game theory.  Although it is an artificial scenario, it provides interesting insights into important aspects of human thinking and behavior, such as rational decision-making, trust, self-interest, and cooperation.

Consider the following scenario:  

Two criminals are arrested and each is placed in a separate jail cell to make sure that they do not communicate.  Although the prosecutor does have evidence that will convict both men of an offense that will result in a one-year jail sentence, he suspects that both have committed a major crime -- one that would yield a harsher sentence of 10 years in prison.  His hope is that he can get one of the prisoners to flip and provide evidence that will implicate his partner in crime.  Based on this fact, the prosecutor individually offers both prisoners a deal:  If both prisoners remain silent, each will receive a sentence of one year.  If both spill the beans, each prisoner will receive a two-year sentence.  If, however, one betrays his partner, while the other remains silent, the cooperating prisoner will go free while the silent prisoner will receive a ten-year sentence.

                                                                        Image by Elisa from Pixabay 

Given this scenario, what would you do if you were one of the prisoners?  How would you resolve the dilemma?  Remember, you cannot speak with your partner in crime before you make your decision.  Would you trust your partner to remain silent and get a smaller sentence, or would you betray him, knowing that this is the only way to get off without a sentence?

On this day in 2012, an article was published in Wired explaining how the prisoners’ dilemma is very much a real-world scenario in the world of competitive sports.  The specific sport being referred to was professional bicycle racing and the specific dilemma was that of whether or not to use performance-enhancing drugs.

The author of the article, Bruce Schneier, frames the doping dilemma as follows:  

If Bob doesn’t take any drugs, then it will be in my best interest to take them. They will give me a performance edge against Bob.  I have a better chance of winning.  Similarly, if Bob takes drugs, it’s also in my interest to agree to take them.  At least that way Bob won’t have an advantage over me.  So even though I have no control over what Bob chooses to do, taking drugs gives me the better outcome, regardless of his action. (1)

Given this scenario, it is easy to see why competitors like Lance Armstrong are tempted to stay competitive by doping.

In a study published in The Economic Journal in 1982, economists devised a money-based version of the prisoner’s dilemma. Two players were given the opportunity to earn money based on the following rules:

-If both players cooperate with each other, each player earns $10.

-If one player does not cooperate (known as defecting), but the other does, the cooperating player receives nothing and the defector receives $15.

-If both players defect, each receives $5.

What this study revealed was that pairs of players who played the game multiple times with each other cooperated more. This fact shows how the establishment of a relationship mitigates defecting.  It also shows the importance of how an established reputation impacts relationships (2).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the prisoners’ dilemma, and how does it relate to doping in sports?

Challenge - Dollars and Dilemmas:  Consider a modified version of the prisoners’ dilemma called “Split or Steal.”  You present two strangers with an opportunity to win up to $20 based on the following rules.

Each must independently decide to either split the money with the stranger sitting across the table from them or to steal the money.

-If both players chose to split the money, they both earn $10.

-If one chooses to split the money but the other decides to steal, the stealing player gets all the money.

-If both players choose to steal, neither player gets any money.

Based on what you know about human nature, what do you think most people would do?  Would most people act out of self-interest, or do you think people default to cooperation even when working with strangers?

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

October 26, 1999:  On this date in 1999, a web developer named Benj Clews had a brief but ingenious idea.  Clews wanted to create a website for movie reviews, but he wanted it to be different.  His idea was to limit the movie reviews to four words or fewer.  That same year he created the website Four Word Film Review, which in the internet tradition of crowdsourcing, invites readers to submit their reviews.  Most of the reviews at www.fwfr.com are not so much reviews as they are new titles, but the fun comes in the wonderful wordplay that results. Puns, alliteration, and adaptations of other film titles are all a part of the creative writing game of making every word count.

 

For example, here are seven examples of reviews for the film Jaws:

 

Gulp fiction

Shaw shark retention

Jurassic shark

Shooting barrel in fish

Gil against island

Diet: fish and ships

Amity's vile horror (3)

Sources:

1-Schneier, Bruce. “Lance Armstrong and the Prisoners’ Dilemma of Doping in Professional Sports.”  Wired 26 Oct. 2012.

2-Anderoni, J., & Miller, J. H. (1982). Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma: Experimental evidence. The Economic Journal, 103(418), 570-585.

3-Clews, Benj and Michael Onesi.  Four Word Film Reviews.  Massachusetts:  Adams Media, 2010.