The Dater’s Dilemma
The prisoners dilemma is a classic experiment in game theory, featuring two hypothetical criminals. The criminals are caught, detained, and interrogated separately. Because they don’t share a prison cell, each is unaware of what is happening to the other. The police give each criminal a chance to go free but only if they confess to the crime. Both criminals consider their options:
Option #1: Confess to the crime.
Choice: Betray the other criminal.
Outcome: Gain freedom.
Risk: But if both confess, each gets the maximum prison time.
Option #2: Keep quiet and plead the fifth.
Choice: Cooperate with the other criminal.
Outcome: Receive a small punishment (less prison time).
Risk: But if both cooperate, each gets the minimum prison time.
Dilemma: If one confesses while the other pleads the fifth, the snitch goes free (rewarded for turning states evidence) while the criminal who pleads the fifth gets the maximum prison time (aka, the sucker’s payoff).
Both criminals are motivated by the higher payoff – going free by confessing. But both suspect the other might share this motivation. And since they can’t communicate, neither knows for sure what the other will choose. Each criminal must decide independently whether to cooperate with the other by keeping quiet and risk a minimum loss or betray the other to secure the maximum payoff: freedom from prison.
The Dater’s Dilemma
The dater’s dilemma describes a similar situation between Charlotte and Chandler. During their “interrogations” (dates) either will have conflicting versions of the dating game. Chandler believes that Charlotte intends to play her game and vice versa. Due to their communication barrier – neither will want to reveal their strategy for securing their maximum payoff (perhaps for fear that its discovery would prematurely end the game) Chandler might err on the assumption that to win, Charlotte will “betray”, playing games in order to maximize her payoffs. The problem is that she suspects Chandler will want to do likewise. Both daters consider the following options:
Option #1: Play Games
Choice: Deceive the other player using secret strategies.
Outcome: Gain a short term payoff (booty call or foodie call).
Risk: If both deceive, each decreases the chance of future gains.
Option #2: Avoid games
Choice: Cooperate with the other player through communication.
Outcome: Compromise the short term payoff for a long term one.
Risk: If both cooperate, each reduces the risk of future losses.
Dilemma: If one person deceives while the other avoids using games, the pessimistic deceiver gets their reward while the optimistic cooperator gets the sucker’s payoff (more on this soon). Our “prisoners of love” have a dilemma because of missing information: neither knows for sure what the other player will do but both suspect that the other will play according to their preferred version of the dating game. With such alternatives and the uncertainty of trust, each dater’s outcome becomes dependent on the other’s choice, and the result is that each assumes the other will act from self-interest. This scenario results in an incentive to deceive rather than to cooperate.
Since each dater is unwilling to cooperate and take a small loss, betrayal is more likely. The dater’s dilemma predicts that both daters will continue to betray rather than cooperate. This means that Team Chandler, being held to ever higher standards, will be more likely to be experience rejection. And Team Charlotte, being superlative seekers looking to bag high value men – will be more likely to experience betrayers: males who’re ready to exploit their surplus of copycat bag-chasers.
Such silent stats suggest that any random pairing from these two teams would more than likely produce daters who have encountered exploitative games. This perpetuates the dater’s dilemma, where both teams might say that “they don’t want to play games” but neither is willing to take the risk of playing cooperatively.
If Team Chandler experiences more repeated losses or rejections over Team Charlotte, the result is learned helplessness, with the former believing that his efforts will have no impact on achieving a positive outcome, perhaps rooted in low self-esteem and a reduced motivation to keep trying. This perception that future success is unlikely creates a fear of failure, leading to less effort or risk-taking, further decreasing the chances of any team winning. When both betray, both gain nothing.
Now let’s assume C&C could agree in advance to not play games and communicate their needs and goals – is it possible to arrive at an outcome where neither is worse off?
To learn how to resolve the dater’s dilemma, Pre-Order Your Copy!