The setting for this dilemma is a monarchy. In the monarch�s castle, 2 employees (Mutt and Jeff) are believed by the King (Bill the First) to have had an affair with the Queen (Hillary). Bill then arrests Mutt and Jeff and places them in separate cells, so that they may not consult with each other. Bill asks each of them if the other is the guilty party. For purposes of the model, it is not necessary to know whether either or both is guilty, as the result will be the same.
(P.S.: Bill doesn�t solicit Hillary�s opinion in this matter; he will convict and execute her just for fun, unless exonerated by the silence of Mutt and Jeff.)
There are four possible answer combinations, each with a separate set of consequences, shown in the box below.
Why? Trust.
The reason the model is set up within such strict guidelines is to narrow the entire scenario to one question: Can you trust the other guy? In this case, can you trust the other person to keep silent and not accuse you, as you would, such that you both go free and both benefit? Even though there�s government pension involved?
No. If you trust the other person, the other person may not trust you, and thus accuse you. Then you�re shorter by a head. The question for me then also becomes, am I willing to risk my head on trusting you? I�m quite attached to my head, and not inclined to trust you not to play soccer with it. Better we both be stuck in prison than my head get chopped.
This is substantially the same dilemma faced by OPEC when it was first created, a dilemma that still exists. Can each member trust the others to go along?