Three people in less than a week have referred to the "prisoner's dilemma" in conversation with me. Now, to be fair, the second person was probably influenced by the first, who tends to stick to a concept for a week or so at a time and reference it in multiple settings. (Which I think we all tend do do.)

The prisoner's dilemma is a situation - a game - in which the contestants must either cooperate or betray each other to win. Each player's goal is only to get the most they can. The question becomes - will I get more from cooperating with the other player or betraying them? What will the other person do? A typical example is when two crime suspects are pitted against each other during questioning - if they both stay quiet, they might walk. Can they count on their partner to stay quiet, or should they "talk" in the hopes they will get a lesser sentence in return for sharing?

The thing that struck me is that the folks who alluded to being in a "prisoner's dilemma" had ways out of their perceived prison cells - ways they weren't seeing. Does that make them boiled frogs?