At the start of the show, two contestants, Kishwar and Aman, were sent to Double Trouble rooms, sound-proof chambers where they could not know what the other was doing. They were presented with a buzzer and three options each:
1. If only one of them pressed the buzzer, everyone in the house would be set free. (The members had been tied in pairs thus far.)
2. If no one pressed the buzzer, one team in addition to Kishwar and Aman would stay harnessed. (Aman and Kishwar were at this time the only free pair due to their victory in the last task.)
3. If both of them pressed the buzzers, only they get tied again while the rest of the pairs are released.
The best option for them would be if only one pressed the buzzer. But in the absence of knowledge of what the other person was doing, the decision was difficult. Taking a decision without knowing what the other player is going to do is what makes this a version of Prisoner's Dilemma, a popular strategy in game theory. The dilemma goes like this: Two crime partners are taken to separate rooms and asked to confess to a crime. The punishment for the crime is 10 years. However, if one confesses to the crime, that is he betray his partner, he is set free while the partner gets 20 years.
Now let's assume the partners are A and B. A does not know what B is going to say in the confession room, and vice-versa. If you consider the options in some detail, you would realise that the optimal solution is for both A and B to remain quiet and not confess to the crime. Any other case leaves them worse off:
1. A confesses; B does not: A gets 0 years while B gets 20.
2. B confesses; A does not: B gets 0 years while A gets 20.
3. Neither confesses: Both serve 10 years each.
4. Both confess: Both serve 20 years each.
Analyse this. Mutual cooperation is better than mutual defection since when neither confesses each gets only 10 years. Since neither knows what the other one is going to say it is better for each to stay silent. If A confesses and B does not, A benefits, but he does not know that B has stayed silent. In case B too confessed, both get 20 years which is worse than when both stay silent. So, it is in their interest to stay silent.
This strategy where a rational action - confessing to the crime and so reducing one's sentence - does not yield the best outcome is often seen in business situations. Advertising is one area where it gets employed. If firm X spends money on advertising, firm Y would have to match that amount to stay competitive. However, if both firms chose not to advertise, they could save on costs. But this cost-saving action can backfire if one firm decides to advertise. So, both advertise.
Of course, what we saw in the Bigg Boss house was not really a case of Prisoner's Dilemma. After Aman pressed the buzzer, Kishwar's decision to press or not would have determined the outcome. She chose not to press it in the end, and everyone was set free. (Aman and Kishwar too stayed free.)
Kishwar later explained that she calculated that the best outcome would have been not to press the buzzer because in case Aman had pressed it, everyone would be set free. And in case Aman had not, Option 2 would kick in and one team apart from Aman-Kishwar would be tied. That in her view was still a better outcome than everyone in the house getting tied up in pairs. To be sure, this was not a true Prisoner's Dilemma because for two outcomes Aman and Kishwar would have anyway been tied up. Only in the case of only one person hitting the buzzer would they remain free, and Kishwar banked on Aman making that choice.
The episode was a pleasant reminder of my strategy class in B-school. I had never expected Bigg Boss, which is mostly known for slanging matches between its participants, to evoke academic memories.
Every week, Eye Culture features writers with an entertaining critical take on art, music, dance, film and sport