Mainly the things I mention in the last section. I think real-world collective action problems can be solved (where “solved” means “we get to a slightly better equilibrium than we had before”, not “everybody cooperates fully”) by having the participants discuss their goals and methods with each other, to create common knowledge of the benefits of cooperation. (And teaching them game theory, of course.)
And less about the prisoner’s dilemma than acausal reasoning in general, but I take the “don’t pay out to extortion” thing seriously and will pretty much never do what somebody asks due to a threat of some bad consequence from them if I don’t. (There’s not actually a clear line between what sorts of things count as “threats” vs. “trades”, and I mainly just go on vibes to tell which is which. Technically, any time I choose to follow a law because I’m worried about going to jail, that’s doing the same thing, but it seems correct to view that differently from an explicit threat by an individual.)
Mainly the things I mention in the last section. I think real-world collective action problems can be solved (where “solved” means “we get to a slightly better equilibrium than we had before”, not “everybody cooperates fully”) by having the participants discuss their goals and methods with each other, to create common knowledge of the benefits of cooperation. (And teaching them game theory, of course.)
And less about the prisoner’s dilemma than acausal reasoning in general, but I take the “don’t pay out to extortion” thing seriously and will pretty much never do what somebody asks due to a threat of some bad consequence from them if I don’t. (There’s not actually a clear line between what sorts of things count as “threats” vs. “trades”, and I mainly just go on vibes to tell which is which. Technically, any time I choose to follow a law because I’m worried about going to jail, that’s doing the same thing, but it seems correct to view that differently from an explicit threat by an individual.)