Team Reasoning: Navigating Dilemmas in Politics and Business - An Analytical Essay

The paradox of such a setting is that both suspects have no idea of what the decisions are to be made by the fellow suspect. The decision of each one among them can be to blame each other, and this can make them end up in prison for three years each. The two are thinking under restrictive conditions knowing that the counterpart is also thinking to free himself. Therefore, both can use the same rationale to blame each other from the perspective of self-interest. On the other hand, the decision to remain silent can make them achieve optimal payoff, which is not rational since both parties act for self-interest benefits. Furthermore, the decision that one of the prisoners can make is rational from a self-interest perspective, and it gives a Nash equilibrium even though the decision is the worst payoff.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The context of the prisoners' dilemma has led most governments' political leaders to change their differences and work together with the aim of benefiting the citizens. In most countries in the world, there have been political wars and human massacres due to citizens' indifference in terms of who will lead the country. Most of the reported cases, according to studies, are tribalism, racism, and religious differences. To harmonize the mayhem that may have arisen as a result of political differences, respective political leaders who are concerned should come together, integrate and rationalize their differences for the benefit of the country to stay at peace.

The majority of nations in the world are currently under the issue of long-term climate change; they will not consider the effects of emitting industrial gases into the atmosphere. The individual country should make the decisions to make sure that they control and look for ways to regulate the gases that may cause greenhouse effects. If an individual country does this, and the rest of the world has gone against it, there is a high chance of climate change that can affect the world's largest part. On the other hand, if all countries in the world are allowing pollutants' emission into the air, the whole world can face pollution, including climate change. Suppose they collectively come together to fight the emission of gases that might cause greenhouse effects. In that case, climate change can be reduced, and with continued and with time, a permanent solution can be formulated.

Considering what could be the repercussions of thinking independently, the two individuals had to rationally cooperate for them to come out with a solution that favored both sides. Therefore, for two related reasons, the suspects must cooperate and act prosaically as average reasoners. For cooperation to exist, the two parties need to be confident that their partners may be reasoning individually. Obviously, if they have a certain degree of confidence in each other about their similarities, their expectation of the outcome is more demanding. If one of them acts with self-interest, the other party also is sure to act based on what is best for only him, and if there is collective cooperation as a team reasoner, there are high chances of each member acting independently but towards solving the problem. However, the team reasoners' conditions for rationally cooperating are more restrictive than those under individual reasoning.

Overall, for efficiency consideration, at least three reasons make the agents choose cooperative action. First, it allows an individual to participate freely in making the decision hence showing a widespread cooperative behavior, that is, how will an individual benefit from the choice of his cooperation. Secondly, the cooperation should show consistency in explaining people's reasoning and the advantages that each individual can benefit from despite the fact that they have incentives not to do so. Lastly, the conclusion is drawn in that the evolutionary case is carried over.

Team reasoning has a high chance of being more efficient as compared to individual reasoning. In consideration of what can happen when the two prisoners cooperate, reasoning as a team can make them end up with an optimal solution that can leave each other satisfied. If both decide not to mention anything, they will be jailed for one year each, unlike when they have made they had their decisions based on their self-interests. These cases give equilibria the meaning that the expectation of team utility is higher than when the reasoners fail to cooperate. On the other hand, if the cooperating partners come together, the expectation of their mutual payoff will be inferior.

A problem can be solved using coordination strategies that are fundamental and do not alter the agreement's conditions. The sprain can be healed without breaking the bone. If the problem arises, the parties involved can come together and reason to find the optimal solution that is favorable to each one of them. Justification of intuitive rationality will be the center of their agreement. The deviation that exists among the partnered members can be coordinated, and the equilibrium point is realized through teamwork. Also, this will help to solve the future indifference that may arise, and hence team reasoning coordinates the preferred measure to curb social indifferences.

To reason as a team has so many impacts on business organizations. The battle in the marketplace may result from the rivalry between the firms that sell the same products but produce differently based on their production processes. Take, for example, the Pepsi company and Coca-Cola rivalry in selling soft drinks in the world market. Numerous case studies have arisen due to high competition in the market. Each company is trying to occupy and hold a large market in the world. To compete favorably, the other counterpart needs to reduce prices in order for it to have a large market in the world. Thus it is subjecting itself to make losses as it continues to operate while the other counterpart will not make the normal profits due to the small number of consumers it serves (Lin et al., 2019). They need to come together and agree on the standards of the price of their products in general. In doing so, the market is equally shared, and both parties will make reasonable prices without discriminating against each other. Hence, teamwork will ensure continued mutual benefits.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, we have to be vigilant to avoid the chaos that is brought about by our desires for self-care. It is the responsibility of either state, community, or individual to consider team reasoning for simplification and finding improved solutions to social and political problems. From the puzzle, the prisoners' dilemma indicates tries to balance the situation by neither leaving the other side of the party worse off nor better off.

References

Lin, X., Chatterjee, K., & Schreyer Honors College. (2019). Prisoner's dilemma and other-regarding preferences.

Chen, S., Dorfman, J., University of Georgia, University of Georgia., & University of Georgia Electronic Theses and Dissertations database. (2017). The prisoners' dilemma of disobeying the rules: Is corruption combating a cure for both markets and non-markets?

Schein, E. H., Dyer, W. G., Dyer, W. G., & Dyer, J. H. (2013). Team building: Proven strategies for improving team performance. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.