ImagÂine two prisÂonÂers, each one placed in soliÂtary conÂfineÂment. The police offer a deal: if each betrays the othÂer, they’ll both get five years in prison. If one betrays the othÂer but the othÂer keeps quiÂet, the betrayÂer will walk free and the betrayed will serve ten years. If neiÂther say anyÂthing, they’ll both be locked up, but only for two years. Unable coorÂdiÂnate, both prisÂonÂers will likeÂly betray each othÂer in order to secure the best indiÂvidÂual outÂcome, despite the fact that it would be betÂter on the whole for both to keep their mouths shut. This is the “prisÂonÂer’s dilemÂma,” a thought experÂiÂment much-citÂed in game theÂoÂry and ecoÂnomÂics since the midÂdle of the twenÂtiÂeth cenÂtuÂry.
Though the sitÂuÂaÂtion the prisÂonÂer’s dilemÂma describes may sound quite speÂcifÂic, its genÂerÂal form actuÂalÂly conÂforms to that of a variÂety of probÂlems that arise throughÂout the modÂern world, in polÂiÂtics, trade, interÂperÂsonÂal relaÂtions, and a great many othÂers besides.
BlogÂger Scott AlexanÂder describes the prisÂonÂer’s dilemÂmas as one manÂiÂfesÂtaÂtion of what Allen GinsÂberg called Moloch, the relentÂless unseen force that driÂves sociÂeties toward misÂery. Moloch “always and everyÂwhere offers the same deal: throw what you love most into the flames, and I can grant you powÂer.” Or, as he’d put it to Chewy the ginÂgerÂbread man, “Betray your friend Crispy, and I’ll make a fox eat only three of your limbs.”
Such is the sitÂuÂaÂtion aniÂmatÂed in gloÂriÂousÂly woolÂly stop-motion by Ivana BošnÂjak and Thomas JohnÂson in the TED-Ed video at the top of the post, which replaces the prisÂonÂers with “senÂtient baked goods,” the jailÂer with a hunÂgry woodÂland predaÂtor, and years of imprisÂonÂment with bitÂten-off arms and legs. After explainÂing the prisÂonÂer’s dilemÂma in a whimÂsiÂcal manÂner, it presents one proÂposed soluÂtion: the “infiÂnite prisÂonÂer’s dilemÂma,” in which the parÂticÂiÂpants decide not just once but over and over again. Such a setÂup would allow them to “use their future deciÂsions as barÂgainÂing chips for the present one,” and evenÂtuÂalÂly (dependÂing upon how heavÂiÂly they valÂue future outÂcomes in the present) to setÂtle upon repeatÂing the outÂcome that would let both of them walk free — as free as they can walk on one ginÂgerÂbread leg, at any rate.
RelatÂed conÂtent:
Based in Seoul, ColÂin Marshall writes and broadÂcasts on cities, lanÂguage, and culÂture. His projects include the SubÂstack newsletÂter Books on Cities, the book The StateÂless City: a Walk through 21st-CenÂtuÂry Los AngeÂles and the video series The City in CinÂeÂma. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall or on FaceÂbook.






















