Please help reply to this classmates comment.

Classmate 1) Anna

The prisoner's dilemma describes a hypothetical situation in which partners in crime must decide whether to confess or remain silent. In this situation, the prisoners often confess to the crime, which involves prison time, because they do not trust that the other prisoner will hold out as well. The reason they seem to operate against their own self-interest is because if the other prisoner confesses and they remain silent, the confessing prisoner will get no time and the silent prisoner will get the maximum possible time. Essentially, the prisoner's dilemma is a situation where two people could easily act in their own self-interest, but instead choose to cooperate.

An example of the prisoner's dilemma in everyday life deals with group projects in school. Many times in these group projects, one or two people shoulder most of the work but take equal credit for the final project with their group members who may not have contributed as much. It may be more personally advantageous for the group members who contributed more to take credit for the project, but they ultimately take the cooperative approach.

Classmate 2) Diana

Even though it may seem illogical to each person, prisoners have been known to turn on one another and confess to crimes for a variety of reasons. The idea of mutual interdependence, which is fundamental to game theory and social interactions, is one important component. Each prisoner in a situation involving a prisoner's dilemma must decide whether to confess or keep quiet. Both get a lighter sentence if they don't say anything. On the other hand, if one confesses while the other doesn't, the confessor might earn a less sentence or perhaps immunity, while the quiet party would face a heavier punishment. If they both confess, their penalties will be fair. However, out of fear of being betrayed, frequently leads to both of them confessing even if working together would benefit them both.

One example from my work experience is from an initiative where everyone in the team had to distribute resources equally. I once required more resources in order to fulfill a deadline. I asked for additional resources because I knew that others were under pressure as well, thinking that this would benefit the team as a whole. But others felt compelled to defend their requirements in response to my request, which created conflict and inefficient resource distribution. In retrospect, better results would have come from a more cooperative strategy that took the requirements of the team as a whole into account rather than just individual objectives.