Therefore, this trick of Thangkazhi, although the action is small, has a big effect.

Afterwards, when Jiang Hongli and Lao Fu mentioned this matter, they also sighed a lot about this small detail. If there is no hint from the thangka, it is very likely that someone will be given a handle. Then, it will not be so painful to get rid of this "fan" group.

Of course, that's for later.

Just when Jiang Hongli rolled up his sleeves and came to the tall man with his hands outstretched, the tall and short man's face showed a desperate look.

The most desperate is still the tall man, because at this time, the three packages of goods were transferred to his sleeve by the short man with the method of "empty passing". Therefore, if Jiang Hongli unbuttons the sleeves of both of them for a while, then the last person to be "caught" will be the tall man himself.

In fact, just now, the tall man was hindered by the original meaning of "hardcore alliance", so he took the initiative to come over, and then bent down to make the last effort for the short man, so as to avoid the things in the short man's sleeve being caught, causing the entire chain of interests to be broken.

In other words, the tall man can be pushed by unknowingly, and the culpability can be reduced by at least half. To put it more bluntly, this short Li Jinsheng was originally the chief general of the entire "Wipe Traces" team, and this guy really thinks of himself as high, and rarely makes a move until the most critical time.

Moreover, Li Jinsheng does have arrogant capital, and he has never missed a job since he was transferred from the Public Security Comprehensive Department to the Disposal Brigade. But I didn't expect that today, this teaser has tried his best, including his own praise, but it is still useless, and in the end it is impossible to escape the fate of destruction.

Time, luck, and life. Perhaps, this is fate.

At this time, Thangka quietly watched the changes in the expressions of the tall and short people, especially the desperate of the tall ones, and couldn't help but smile.

In fact, he understands the anguish of these two people, especially the tall ones, very well.

To put it mildly, this is a realistic version of the "prisoner's dilemma". At worst, this is the cornerstone of the whole "game theory".

The so-called "prisoner's dilemma" has a very broad extended meaning. However, the source is very simple.

The two suspects were caught by the police after committing the crime and locked up in separate rooms for interrogation. The police knew that the two were guilty, but lacked sufficient evidence.

So, the police told everyone that there were two choices, confess or deny. However, since two people come in at the same time, there are three possibilities.

First, if both men deny it, they are each sentenced to one year in prison.

Second, if both confess, they will be sentenced to eight years each.

Third, if one of the two confesses and the other denies, the confessor is released, and the denial is sentenced to ten years.

So, at this time, each prisoner will make a calculation, and consider what it means for themselves to confess or deny. Most importantly, you also need to consider whether the other party will confess or deny.

However, in the end, every prisoner will figure out that no matter what the accomplice chooses, his best option is to confess.

This is because, if an accomplice denies and confesses himself, then he will be released immediately, and the sentence for denial will be ten years. So, from this point of view, it's better to confess than not to confess.

On the other hand, if the accomplice confesses and confesses himself, he will be sentenced to eight years each, which is better than denying that he will be sentenced to ten years.

So, from the prisoner's point of view, it is better to confess than to deny. In the end, both suspects will choose to confess and be sentenced to eight years in prison each.

At this time, go back to the original point, and then look at the selection conditions, if both of them deny it, they will be sentenced to one year each, and obviously this result is good. But this result is difficult to achieve, because it violates the minimum bottom line of human beings, that is, the rational requirements of the individual.

We are all egoists, and the "prisoner's dilemma" reflects a profound problem that human individuality can sometimes lead to collective irrationality – intelligent human beings end up cocooning themselves because of their own intelligence.

Of course, there is a deeper meaning in this, that is, this confession between the two sides is just the result of a game. This may also involve a variety of reasons, such as retribution for confession, and the motive for deception that may be overcome by the threat of punishment. Therefore, the results of multiple games may be diversified.

Don't underestimate this "prisoner's dilemma" that stems from self-inflicted cleverness, and the breadth of related fields it has caused can be said to have penetrated into all aspects of the economy and society.

Take, for example, the arms race between the two countries.

Both countries can claim two options: increase armaments (betrayal) or reach an arms reduction agreement (cooperation).

Similar to the two prisoners, neither country is certain that the other will abide by the cooperation agreement. As a result, most of the two countries will be motivated by this distrust to emphasize self-rationality and eventually tend to increase their respective armaments.

Therefore, it seems that the increase in armaments will be a "rational" act of each country, but the result is very "irrational". damage to the cooperative relationship between the two countries, causing damage to the national economy, etc.

One of the most obvious examples is the struggle for hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union, which influenced the world after World War II.

The struggle for hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union was divided into three phases, which were like three dilemma games between two prisoners.

The first stage, from the mid-50s to the early 60s of the twentieth century, was characterized by both détente and contention.

In terms of détente: In 1955, the Soviet Union took the initiative to cooperate with Western countries and signed a peace treaty with Austria, which solved a major problem left over from World War II. In the same year, the Soviet Union established diplomatic relations with the Federal Republic of Germany. Khrushchev's visit to the United States in 1959 and the Camp David meeting of the US-Soviet summit were a major move by the Soviet Union to pursue a diplomatic strategy of US-Soviet cooperation, and the United States actually recognized the fact that the Soviet Union was a superpower.

On the tense side: In 1961, the Soviet Union built the "Berlin Wall" and sealed the border between East and West Berlin, which made relations between the United States and the Soviet Union even more tense. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 showed that the Soviet Union was beginning to embark on the path of global competition with the United States, and at the same time, it also showed that the strategic advantage at that time was still on the side of the United States.

During this period, the Soviet Union also pursued hegemonism against China in an attempt to control China, which worsened Sino-Soviet relations.

The second stage, from the mid-60s to the end of the 70s of the twentieth century, was characterized by the Soviet Union being on the offensive and the United States switching from offensive to defensive.

In 1964, Leonid Brezhnev came to power, and until the 70s, the gap between the economic power of the Soviet Union and that of the United States was greatly reduced. In 1975, the total industrial output of the Soviet Union rose to 80% of that of the United States. And in terms of armaments, the USSR caught up with the United States in an all-round way.

By 1975, the Soviet Union had 2,402 strategic missiles, 40% more than the United States. In 1979, the USSR spent almost three times as much on strategic nuclear forces as the United States. In conventional military forces, the USSR was also in the lead. In 1978, the U.S. military had a regular military strength of 2.1 million men, while the Soviet army reached 4.4 million. The US army has 10,500 tanks, and the Soviets have 50,000 tanks.

During this period, the Soviet Union pursued an aggressive offensive strategy of competing with the United States for world hegemony. The focus of the struggle for hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union was in Europe, and both the United States and the Soviet Union had amassed heavy troops in Europe, and they were in a stalemate of confrontation between the two armies. On the one hand, the Soviet Union paralyzed the West with a strategy of "détente" towards Europe, and on the other hand, it stepped up its expansion outside Europe. The invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 marked the culmination of Soviet hegemonic policy.

During this period, due to the impact of the economic crisis, the United States' economic growth tended to slow down, the war of aggression against Vietnam suffered a serious setback, its military strength was caught up by the Soviet Union, and the United States switched from strategic offensive to strategic defense in the US-Soviet struggle for hegemony. The Nixon Doctrine after 1969, the adjustment of global military deployments, the reduction of military forces in Asia, the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam in 1973, and the establishment of diplomatic relations with China in 1979 were all concrete manifestations of the shift from offensive to defensive.

The third stage, from the late 80s to the early 90s of the twentieth century, was characterized by the shift of the United States from defense to offense, while the Soviet Union was forced to go on the defensive, and finally collapsed due to the collapse of the domestic economy.

In 1981, after Ronald Reagan became president of the United States, he began to take a tough stance against the Soviet Union and curb the Soviet Union's global expansion. In terms of nuclear strategy and nuclear armaments, the United States has put forward the "Star Wars" plan to bring down the Soviet Union, which is relatively backward in economic strength, through a new round of arms race with high technology as the core.

In the struggle for the Third World, the United States was based on fighting small-scale local wars militarily against pro-Soviet regimes.

Due to the slow development of the domestic economy, the Soviet Union was burdened with a heavy burden in the struggle for hegemony with the United States. After Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he began to abandon the practice of competing for military superiority, and switched to arms reduction, from foreign expansion to comprehensive contraction. It was not until the disintegration of the upheaval that marked the end of the struggle for hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union.

This is the big aspect, and in the small aspect, the theory and practice of the "prisoner's dilemma" have been verified by the same wind and water.

For example, the real estate market, which is extremely close to everyone's daily life.

Once upon a time, real estate developers once agreed that the interests were evenly distributed and the cake was shared. So, before the turn of the twentieth century, the real estate sector was very strong, and there were so many collusions that it was almost "monolithic".

However, in the seemingly peaceful faction, Vanke, which is presided over by Wang Shi, took the lead in choosing "betrayal", unilaterally reducing prices, and focusing on the development of its own brand independently.

The reason for this is that in the market environment at that time, the parties to the game that Vanke expected, that is, the real estate developers in the future predicament, the prisoners, would definitely choose to betray each other generally.

In other words, in this "prisoner's dilemma", the reason why Vanke chose to act first and sell all the real estate developers except it was because it expected that in this predicament, if it did not sell all its companions as soon as possible, it would face the end of being betrayed. After all, this is a "non-zero-sum" game, and selling can be exchanged for very large profits.

Only this time, the "offensive and defensive alliance" created by real estate developers for a long time collapsed, and Vanke also won a lot of territory and reputation.

However, there are positives and negatives, and doubts follow. By "betraying" its peers, can Vanke really reap the best interests of the individual?