Introduction: This activity mainly centres on the advantages of co-operation (a perennial Woodcraft theme) over self-interest, but also touches on justice, evolution, and mathematical game theory ! It’s also good fun.
Preparation: About £2- to £3- worth of change, in 1p, 2p and 5p coins, depending on numbers. Cards marked with ‘C’ and ‘D’ – one of each for each participant. A large sheet of paper with the ‘rules’ (see below) clearly marked out.
Activity – Stage 1: Get the children to pair up. Explain that they are going to play a game in which they will win (and keep) real money, but they will be disqualified if they break the first rule, which is:
No talking – or any other form of communication – between members of the same pair.
This rule is effective immediately – you will see why shortly (though when Harrogate played, one or two wilier pairs did communicate surreptitiously. I chose not to punish them, as their game was quite instructive, too!)
Now give the other game rules: On a given signal, and at the same time, everyone plays one of their cards (a C or a D). Enough adult observers must be present to ensure that no-one changes their card after first playing it, or ‘cheats’ in any other way). Prizes are awarded as follows:
|
A plays ‘C’ |
A plays ‘D’ |
|||
|
B plays ‘C’ |
A wins 3p |
A wins 5p |
||
|
B wins 3p |
B wins nothing |
|||
|
B plays ‘D’ |
A wins nothing |
A wins 1p |
||
|
B wins 5p |
B wins 1p |
This table is written on the large sheet of paper. All players are given a couple of minutes to study it (in silence) before the signal to play is given. Then the signal is given, and prizes awarded.
Activity – Stage 2: Get the players to explain why they played the card they did. Were they satisfied with the outcome ? What difference would it have made had they been able to communicate with the other player ? The ‘dilemma’ for a player is this: logically one should always play ‘D’ – if the opponent plays ‘D’ then ‘D’ is better (1p against nothing) and if s/he plays ‘C’, ‘D’ is still better (5p against 3p). Yet, if both players follow this reasoning, they will both get 1p, much less than if they both played ‘C’ (3p each).
In other words, if both co-operate and can trust each other, the pair does best by both playing ‘C’.
There is no need to explain all this – it’s perhaps better if the players come to this conclusion themselves.
After allowing some discussion, reveal why the game is called ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ – it’s based on a plausible situation like the following:
In a totalitarian state, two Woodcraft Folk are separately arrested for belonging to a proscribed organisation – a ‘crime’ that carries a 6-month gaol sentence. However, both are offered the following deal by their captors – if they sign a ‘confession’ implicating the other prisoner in plotting against the state (which crime carries a 5-year hard-labour sentence), then they will be released without charge. If both 'confess', some leniency will be shown – both would go to gaol for 3 years.
The dilemma is the same as in the game (though more serious), does each prisoner co-operate (i.e. play card ‘C’) with the other, or defect (play card ‘D’) to the enemy ?
Of course, trained Woodcrafters would instinctively co-operate, refuse to sign the ‘confession’ and both receive the lighter gaol sentence ! Or would they ?
Activity – Stage 3: Get the players to repeat the game, with the same rules. The only difference is that they are to play a number of times (don’t say how many !). Repeat as long as time – and funds – permit. At the end, ask again what strategy the players follow – did they co-operate more ? Did they win more ? How much could they trust their ‘opponent’ ?
Background: This ‘game’ has been extensively studied by mathematicians and evolutionary scientists (see Richard Dawkins’ ‘Selfish Gene’ for example). This is because animals frequently find themselves in the same kind of situation – where co-operating with another brings greater rewards for both in the long term at a small short-term cost. For example, the shark that allows a smaller fish to clean the shark’s gills forgoes making a meal of the fish (defecting) in favour of an increase in health due to clean gills (co-operating).
Mathematicians have researched the problem by getting programs with different strategies to ‘play’ each other over long periods. The most successful strategy was found to be the one which started by co-operating (playing ‘C’), then did whatever the opponent did last round. Two such players meeting each other would end up co-operating all the time, to their mutual benefit. On the other hand, the player would not be constantly 'fooled' by one that tended to defect (play ‘D’).
In short – it has been proved mathematically that co-operation is good for you ! More, that natural selection is not all ‘red in tooth and claw’, but often favours co-operative behaviour !