В 1950 году Мелвин Дрешер и Мерил Ф

В 1950 году Мелвин Дрешер и Мерил Флуд открыли дилемму узника. Вот ее суть: двое подозреваемых арестованы перед входом в банк и заключены в одиночные камеры. Для того чтобы побудить их признаться в намерении ограбить банк, полиция делает им следующее предложение: если оба будут молчать, они будут приговорены каждый к двум годам тюрьмы. Если один обвинит другого, а тот так и не заговорит, предатель будет освобожден, а хранящий молчание получит пять лет тюрьмы. Если оба подозреваемых обвинят друг друга, каждый будет осужден на четыре года тюрьмы. При этом сообщники знают о том, что такое предложение сделано им обоим.

Что же происходит? Оба арестованных думают: «Я уверен в том, что другой расколется. Он обвинит меня, мне дадут пять лет, а его освободят, и это будет уже слишком несправедливо». Затем обоим в голову приходит такая мысль: «Если я на него донесу, меня освободят, зачем же страдать обоим, когда один может избежать наказания». Короче говоря, в такой ситуации большинство испытуемых доносят друг на друга. Поскольку второй сообщник рассуждает точно так же, как первый, оба получают по четыре года лишения свободы.

А если бы они оба промолчали, то оказались бы в тюрьме всего на два года.

И еще более странная закономерность: если проводить эксперимент, разрешая обоим подозреваемым свободно общаться между собой, результат остается таким же. Оба человека, даже выработав совместную стратегию поведения, в конце концов совершают предательство. Проблема заключается в том, что люди не способны полностью доверять друг другу.

Результаты (английский) 1:

In 1950, Melvin Drescher and Meryl Flood opened the dilemma of the prisoner. Here's the gist: two suspects arrested in front of the Bank and placed in solitary confinement. In order to encourage them to confess to the intention to Rob a Bank, the police makes it the following sentence: If both stay silent, they will be sentenced to two years in jail each. If one can accuse another, and he never speaks, a traitor to be released, and that silence would receive five years in prison. If the two suspects accused of each other, each will be sentenced to four years in prison. The allies were aware that such an offer was for both of them.What's going on? The two arrested are thinking: "I am confident that the other will crack. He can accuse me, give me five years and he will be released and it would've been too unfair. Then both such a thought comes to mind: "if I'm on it donesu, I will be released, so why suffer both when one can avoid punishment." In short, in this situation, most examinees present at each other. Because the second co-conspirator thinks exactly the same way as the first, both will receive four years in prison.And if they both remained silent, it would have been in prison for two years.And even more strange pattern: when the experiment by allowing both suspects to communicate among themselves, the result remains the same. Both the man, even adopting a joint strategy of behavior in the end commit treachery. The problem is that people are not able to fully trust each other.

Результаты (английский) 2:

In 1950, Melvin Dresher and Merrill Flood opened the prisoner's dilemma. Here is its essence: Two suspects arrested in front of the bank and placed in solitary confinement. In order to encourage them to confess to the intention to rob a bank, the police makes it the following sentence: If both remain silent, they are each sentenced to two years in prison. If one blaming others, and he did not speak, the traitor will be released, and keepeth silence get five years in prison. If the two suspects accused each other, everyone will be sentenced to four years in prison. At the same time associates know that such a proposal is made ​​to both of them. What is happening? Both prisoners are thinking, "I'm sure that the other split. He accused me, give me five years, and he was released, and it will be too unfair. " Then both comes to mind this thought: "If I heard it, I was released, why suffer both when one can escape punishment." In short, in such a situation, the majority of participants to inform on each other. Since the second accomplice says exactly the same as the first, both receive four years of imprisonment. And if they both remained silent, he would have been in jail for only two years. And even more strange pattern: if the experiment is conducted, allowing the two suspects free communicate with each other, the result is the same. Both men, even to develop a joint strategy of behavior, in the end commit treason. The problem is that people are not able to completely trust each other.

Результаты (английский) 3:

In 1950, Melvin Дрешер and Merrill spamming opened dilemma prisoner. This is the essence: two suspects were arrested in front of the entrance to the bank and had been placed in solitary confinement.In order to encourage them confess in intention to rob the bank, the police are doing to them the following proposal: if the two will remain silent, they will be sentenced each to two years in prison. If one president's speech another,As well the so and not twig, the traitor will be released, and thy silence will receive five years prison. If both suspects accused each other, each will be sentenced to four years imprisonment. The associates are aware of the fact,That such a proposal was made to them both.lord what is happening? Two arrested because they think: "I am sure that the other surely. The president's speech i am, I will be five years, and its release, and it will be too unfair".Then both in the head comes this thought: "If I am on it, I wouldn't write, so why suffer both, when one can escape the punishment". In short,In such a situation the probationer generalisations on each other. Since the second accomplice talking in the same way as the first, both receive the four years of deprivation of liberty.lord and if they both Tatmedia now controls,It would have been in prison for two years.lord and even more bizarre pattern: if you do the experiment, allowing both suspects to communicate freely among themselves, the result remains the same. Both rights,Even suggesting a joint strategy of behavior, in the end are committing treachery. The problem is that people are not able to fully trust each other.