When In Doubt, Defect

Chapter 12 of The Selfish Gene brings a very interesting theory on relationships between living things. This theory, which can be applied to almost every altruistic action towards another being, consists of two options for each participant (Cooperate and Defect) and four outcomes (CC, CD, DC, DD). This is the matrix chart for the "game":

As you can see, the four outcomes bring very different results for Player A. If Player A cooperates, A can win a moderate sum or lose a small sum; but if he defects, he can lose nothing or win a big sum. According to logic, Player A should defect: it gives him or her the best results. But should Player A step over Player B in case B chooses Cooperate and cause Player B to lose points, money or effort (whatever the case is)? In that case, What should Player A chose? This game can be applied in many situations in real life and the results can be extrapolated to see the severity of the players' actions; the best example is The Prisoner's Dilemma, created by Albert W. Tucker. 


This situation consists of two people. They are both suspected of collaborating in a crime and sit in different rooms to be interrogated; both obviously want to lessen their time in jail. The key to understanding this situation is that they can't speak to each other while this is happening and couldn't speak beforehand, either. The police agents invite both to DEFECT their partner by giving in evidence against the other and lessening their time in jail. If one defects and the other doesn't say anything about the story imposed on him (COOPERATE), the one who cooperated will get a big jail sentence, while the other will have his sentence shortened or get out unharmed. If they both cooperate, or stay silent, they both will get a moderate sentence. And if they both defect, they are both convicted of the crime but get a somewhat reduced sentence for giving in evidence.


This gets me to my point. What should we do in this case? Can we trust the other participant and cooperate for an equal gain, but risk the defection of the other? Or should we betray others in search of a big reward? I guess this is a very solid theory not only on human relations, but also of other living things' relationships. By playing this game in class, I could see that most people who were betrayed once, never fell into the trap of cooperating another time. The exception was Camilo, who after being betrayed by Connor, kept on cooperating even after Connor had chosen defect.