Game Theory and the Prisoner's Dilemna

The classic example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma involves a fairly labored example involving whether a pair of prisoners inform on each other to the benefit or detriment of the pair. A far better example comes from the 1970s National Hockey League before the League mandated players wear head production. A player wearing a helmet was much less likely to suffer head injuries. However, wearing a helmet cuts down on the player’s peripheral vision, making them a less effective player on the ice.

So, consider two players competing for an open spot on an NHL team. Both are equally talented and both wear helmets to reduce the likelihood of injuries, giving both an equal chance at the spot. Now, one removes their helmet, improving their play and thus giving them an advantage in securing the spot, but also increasing the likelihood of injury. The other player thus has the choice of continuing to wear a helmet, reducing the likelihood of suffering injury, but also losing their chance of securing a spot on the team.

In short, if both players choose the safe option, both players remain safe and have an equal chance of securing a spot on the team. This is arguably the best option. The worst option is, of course, neither player wearing a helmet, giving them the same shot at the position but with greater chance of injury. If neither seeks an advantage over the other, both wind up in a superior position while, if one seeks an advantage over the other, both wind up in a poorer position.