Lead:

In the "prisoner's dilemma", if two suspects "collude" with each other, the term is more elegant in economics, and it is called "cooperation", the best result can be achieved; Or to put it another way, when they think about each other first, they can also get the shortest time in prison. At this time, the problem becomes profound: everyone's self-interested behavior leads to the final outcome that is unfavorable to everyone, and only cooperation can make everyone get the most benefits and form a "win-win situation".

"The Prisoner's Dilemma" is both an intriguing little story and a classic game theory of economics. The police have apprehended two key suspects with little evidence and would have received only a light punishment if they had been sentenced. So, the police took such an approach. Isolate the two and say to each of them separately:

(1) If you plead guilty and your accomplice is silent, then he will be sentenced to 10 years in prison, and you will be freed immediately.

(2) Conversely, if your accomplice pleads guilty and you remain silent, then you will be sentenced to 10 years and he will be free.

(3) If both of you plead guilty, each of you will be sentenced to 5 years in prison.

(4) If both of you are silent, each of you will only go to jail for 1 year (because the police have insufficient evidence).

With a little analysis, we will find that each suspect may face 10 years, 5 years, 1 year and O years in prison. From their point of view, of course, they want to avoid the 10-year long life behind bars and be free immediately. However, herein lies the crux of the matter: the final sentence of each person is not determined by himself, but the result of two people making a choice together, that is, two people need to work together to achieve it. If the reader is interested, he or she can put himself in the shoes of a suspect and find that there are many mysteries and even questions about human nature.

Of course, economists are more concerned with the principle of "game theory". In general, economic theory holds that every individual in the market wants to maximize their own profits. However, people who do business are not stupid, and if you want to maximize profits, I am sure that I will too. Suppose I am one of the A suspects, of course, I want to "confess and be lenient" and B "resist strictly", but years of "social experience" tell me that B will definitely think the same way. It's not bad to settle for 1 year in prison, provided that both of you are silent, but I would be taking a big risk doing that (because B might confess). After thinking about it, he decided that he would confess, so that he avoided 10 years in prison, which is 5 years at most, and there was no hope for a 1-year sentence that would be beneficial to both parties.

The result of "the two of them were in prison for 5 years together" appeared in this way.

From a bystander's point of view, the "prisoner's dilemma" is clearly not the best outcome. However, it turned out to be in line with Western economic theory. Adam Smith, known as the sage of economics, famously said in The Wealth of Nations: "A man can often promote the good of society more effectively than he actually wants to do by pursuing his own interests." What does this mean exactly? That is to say, in a market economy, everyone starts from the purpose of self-interest, and in the end, the whole society will achieve the effect of altruism. In layman's terms, it means that "if everyone is good, society will change for the better". But the "prisoner's dilemma" above posed a powerful challenge to Smith: for the two suspects, guided by the spirit of Smith, it was entirely for their own good, but the result was not good for everyone.

The most favorable one-year prison sentence did not appear, and the two prisoners harmed others and did not benefit themselves, and a paradox arose.

In fact, in a sense, it is this paradox that shakes the foundations of Western economics. We already know that in the "prisoner's dilemma", if two suspects "collude" with each other, the term is more economically elegant, call it "cooperation", and the best results can be achieved; Or to put it another way, when they think about each other first, they can also get the shortest time in prison. At this time, the problem becomes profound: everyone's self-interested behavior leads to the final outcome that is unfavorable to everyone, and only cooperation can make everyone get the most benefits and form a "win-win situation".

Having said that, doesn't this conclusion point to the essence of human nature? If we apply the "prisoner's dilemma" to real life, we will see that there are commonplace games in all aspects of society, economy, politics, management and daily life.

In our country, ordinary people often encounter a variety of home appliance price wars, and businesses compete frantically and reduce prices in order to occupy the market. Consumers are the beneficiaries, of course, but they are often disappointed by the outcome of the price wars. As a result of the "prisoner's dilemma", it hurts others and does not benefit oneself, and in the end, no one makes any money, and even is on the verge of bankruptcy. Price wars are undoubtedly suicide for merchants. Therefore, a correct solution should be for merchants to adopt a cooperative attitude and avoid such meaningless price wars by establishing industry associations and other means.

The "prisoner's dilemma" also applies to the "environmental pollution problem" in our country. It should be said that some industries are often well aware of the harm of environmental pollution and are reluctant to do so, but in many cases they are forced to give up pollution control.

Why is that? Let's make an assumption, that is, if there is no strict regulation, then in order to maximize profits, companies will inevitably sacrifice the environment. If one of the entrepreneurs finds out in his conscience and voluntarily invests in pollution control, then his production costs will inevitably increase, and he will have to raise the price of his products, which will eventually lead to a loss of competitiveness and bankruptcy.

In fact, the practice of China's enterprises at the end of the 20th century was to sacrifice the environment in exchange for the survival space of the enterprise, which is extremely unfavorable to the long-term development of enterprises and society. After strengthening pollution control, enterprises have invested in costs to effectively reduce pollution, that is, they have adopted a cooperative posture in "pollution control", and still obtained the same profits as in the period of high pollution, but the environment has been greatly improved.

Enterprises should develop and grow, do not choose some radical methods, such as price reduction and other unreasonable competition methods are even more undesirable. Only by maintaining cooperation with the same industry can we avoid the "prisoner's dilemma" and make the competition in the market enter the normal track, so as to truly strengthen the strength of the enterprise.

Only talk about the individual, only seek interests, such an enterprise will sooner or later become a "prisoner in the predicament", to break the inherent mode of thinking, to take a cooperative approach, to safeguard the interests of everyone, there will be a prosperity of the market, to achieve the rapid development of enterprises.