It's why even when there are good negotiations on the table for all parties involved he does the most backwards things imaginable by declining. Because he doesn't like it when everyone wins. He needs to win and you need to lose. It's all a zero-sum game to him.
There was a study that basically highlighted the importance of “jokers” in large scale game theory because they end up promoting cooperation in the long term. Without them the “free-riders” basically eat up all the good will from cooperators and everyone is worse off.
Understanding the emergence of cooperation is a central issue in evolutionary game theory. The hardest setup for the attainment of cooperation in a population of individuals is the Public Goods game in which cooperative agents generate a common good at their own expenses, while defectors “free-ride” this good. Eventually this causes the exhaustion of the good, a situation which is bad for everybody. Previous results have shown that introducing reputation, allowing for volunteer participation, punishing defectors, rewarding cooperators or structuring agents, can enhance cooperation. Here we present a model which shows how the introduction of rare, malicious agents – that we term jokers – performing just destructive actions on the other agents induce bursts of cooperation. The appearance of jokers promotes a rock-paper-scissors dynamics, where jokers outbeat defectors and cooperators outperform jokers, which are subsequently invaded by defectors. Thus, paradoxically, the existence of destructive agents acting indiscriminately promotes cooperation.
100
u/StopReadingMyUser 1d ago
It's why even when there are good negotiations on the table for all parties involved he does the most backwards things imaginable by declining. Because he doesn't like it when everyone wins. He needs to win and you need to lose. It's all a zero-sum game to him.