Running head: FINAL PROJECT                         1                              M8A1: Final Project                    ...
FINAL PROJECT                                                                              2                              ...
FINAL PROJECT                                                                                   3                         ...
FINAL PROJECT                                                                               4        Nature also plays a h...
FINAL PROJECT                                                                                 5                           ...
FINAL PROJECT                                                                                6selection may also be an iss...
FINAL PROJECT                                                                               7the survival of humans and hu...
FINAL PROJECT                                                                                    8humans; normally a male ...
FINAL PROJECT                                                                             9                               ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Research Skills


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Research Skills

  1. 1. Running head: FINAL PROJECT 1 M8A1: Final Project Christopher Ruper Argosy University
  2. 2. FINAL PROJECT 2 AbstractCoo-petition is essential to human existence. The study of game theory takes very large gamesand makes them simple. Coo-petition is the action of cooperating and competing. Consider threezebras and two lions. The lions must eat one zebra each, so only one zebra could get away.Assume that the zebra, faced with death, could give its two fellow zebra up to the lion. The zebrawould be cooperating with the lions and competing for its survival. Thus coo-petition isimportant to all living organisms.
  3. 3. FINAL PROJECT 3 Final Paper Intro Coo-petition is the act to cooperating in a competition for mutual benefit; an examplewould be the classic game of monopoly. In this game the players compete with one another toearn money and not go bankrupt. However, players make deals with one another, cooperate, inorder to complete their property series so they can build houses and make more money fromother players. “The idea that only through cooperation will costs be driven down and themagnitude of success enhanced is integral to the thinking of true business leaders. In todaysworld, even the greatest competitors are cooperating,” (Ahava). In game theory a game has to have at least two players, strategies/decisions to make, andpayoffs for the strategies. “Social theory concepts such as norm, value, belief, role, socialrelationship, and institution as well as game can be defined in a uniform way in terms of rulesand rule complexes,” (Roszkowska, 2010). In human evolution humans must cooperate withtheir environment and compete for their survival. To prevent from going extinct humans mustmaster coo-petition. The players in the game of human evolution are humans and the environment. Thestrategies are the ones that humans make in everyday life. The payoffs are the things that are wonor lost by the strategies used. In terms of philanthropy “The philanthropist/investor not only getsa return in the form of a personal gain, but this gain can be re- invested in further philanthropy,”(Ahava, 2008). The environment is nature and anything that humans encounter.
  4. 4. FINAL PROJECT 4 Nature also plays a huge role in human survival; such as great catastrophes likevolcanoes, asteroids, hurricanes, earthquakes…Even though nature often produces randomevents, people can still work together and help each other get past them and ensure the survivalof the species. “Coopetition requires alliance partners to understand that they will cooperate andcompete,” (O‟Connell, 2001). Method One study had college students that played a simple 2x2 game in their college math class.In the second study a competition was held for a computer program of the same 2x2 game. Theparticipants in the first study were the college math students. The participants of the second studywas a collection of many people; ranging from a little kid to adults. There were no restrictions onthe entry. A second study of the computer was also held and this competition had moreparticipants with the same exact parameters. The instruments used in the college math class were a handout given by the teacher and arecord of the results which was made by the teacher. The instrument used in the computer studywas computer programs; one of the participants programs and one for the simulated game. Arecord of the results of this game was also kept. The college math students and players of the computer game played a simple 2x2 gamein their experiment. It was a replica of the famous Prisoners Dilemma game. Each party choseeither option one or two at the same time for 100 rounds. The only knowledge that the playershad was of the decisions of the previous rounds. The results were recorded during each game.
  5. 5. FINAL PROJECT 5 Results The results of the experiment were interesting. They coincided with things that people doin everyday life. The best strategy that made the most payoffs was the one that was provocable,forgiving, and straightforward. The best strategy cooperated until it was provoked, then it wouldimmediately defect. It would also forgive the opponent and cooperate on the next round after itdefected. It was straight forward in its strategy and often gained cooperation from its opponentsby the end of the game. The results still showed that cooperation with between two people willproduce the highest payoff to players of a game. The computer game showed better results than the college math class game. The college math students seemed to make their decisions based on probability or randomness. The computer game was based more on what the other player‟s strategies were during the game or previous rounds. However, both games proved that coo-petition is much better for both players; the computer game was just more accurate at showing this. “Selection bias: This is any bias that may have occurred in the selection of participants,” (Argosy Online, 2010). Discussion By having college math students in one study and random people in another can affectthe external validity of the results. Another affect on the external validity is the winning strategymay not be the best strategy for every even in the real world, so the results may not begeneralized. Since the game was played for 100 rounds the students could have gotten bored andlost concentration; maturation would affect the internal validity of the test. “Among the mostresearched solutions to social dilemmas is communication. Since the late 1950s, it has been wellknown that communication enhances cooperation in social dilemmas,” (Balliet, 2010). Subject
  6. 6. FINAL PROJECT 6selection may also be an issue because the college math students are not necessarily selected atrandom. The implications of the findings are very interesting and applicable to many areas of life.However this type of experiment does not calculate human emotion into the decision makingprocess. The study does not provoke this emotion as no one‟s life or millions of dollars are onthe line; in other words, not representing decision making in a human‟s true environment.Further experiments should be designed in a natural environment or being made during realworld decisions. Animals could also be studied to see if they will conform naturally to the higherpayoff strategies. “Most of the really important games in life are non-zero-sum games, but theyare played as if they are zero-sum games. The way you win a zero-sum game is to compete. Theway you win a non-zero-sum game is to collaborate.” (Smith, 2010). In international politics coo-petition is essential in preventing wars and solvingproblems. Although the term was created after the Cuban Missile Crisis it could have beenapplied to this situation. “The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came tonuclear war. The United States armed forces were at their highest state of readiness ever andSoviet field commanders in Cuba were prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons,”(Anonymous, 1997). With two world powers going head-to-head in the nuclear era, workingtogether as humans, rather than enemies, is more important to the human race. Coo-petition inthis case was used indirectly to prevent nuclear war and the deaths of many humans. As humanswe have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living thing on this planet many times over; soit is important for the survival of humans that countries learn to communicate with one another inorder to prevent a global disaster caused by humans. There are many other things that threaten
  7. 7. FINAL PROJECT 7the survival of humans and humans should not be the cause of their own destruction; rather astool to prevent the extinction on the human race. Other global disasters seem to be looming in the future for humans. Things falling toearth from space, massive volcano eruptions, pollution, the sun exploding…although some ofthese things are not suppose to be happening for a long time, such as the sun exploding, they allwill threaten human survival sometime in the future. The countries of the earth must not beseparated when it comes to global catastrophes; it is everyone‟s responsibility to help minimizethe damages. Coo-petition must be used in these cases. Countries must cooperate and competeagainst catastrophes that threaten human survival. Combining intelligent minds so they are ableto communicate with one another around the world is one way of achieving this goal. Anotherway is to combine recourses so that the costs of preventing a global disaster are limited and thefinancial burden is spread out around the globe. Many preventative measures in the present dayhave not been established because the costs are either too great for one country, the technologymust be developed, and/or more knowledge must be created. Countries being able to work freelytogether will speed up the process and help the human race. In the games humans play, “According to evolutionary psychologists humans possess avariety of „sexual ornaments,‟ physical as well as psychological traits that have evolved asadaptations for reproductive advantage. These sexual ornaments serve as sexually selectedindicators of fitness that are automatically assessed, inspire attentional adhesion, and evokesexual desire in those searching for a mate,” (Josephs, 2010). A human must compete againstother humans to find mates. Coo-petition can exist here by humans working together to findmates for each other; one example could be of a human with dominate “sexual ornaments”providing mates for their less equipped friend. Mating itself is a coo-petition game amongst two
  8. 8. FINAL PROJECT 8humans; normally a male and a female, but it does not have to be limited to that. They must worktogether to increase the survival rate of the offspring that is being raised; whether the offspringwas created from that couple or through adoption. The couples themselves must also worktogether to prevent financial ruin and budget their money together. Furthermore human offspringrelies heavily on its parental figures for support and survival in the early years of its life; until thehuman can take care of itself. Coo-petition in these cases provides more success for eachindividual when they learn to cooperate with one another. Many games exist for humans and the survival games are the most important for thecontinued existence of our species. Coo-petition must be used by humans, whether directly orindirectly, to ensure survival; both of the human individual and of the human species. In earlyyears of human evolution tribes had to work together to take down large prey that can feed many.If no one worked together they would have to find smaller prey or food with much less nutrients.The more humans learn the tradeoffs for cooperation and competition with one another the morethey will gain. Coo-petition is going to be used in the future, as it is being used today, to explainmany things that are occurring and for the prevention of disasters. It is now being introduced tomany different departments of education not just mathematics. More research and studies need tobe done for further mastery of the topic.
  9. 9. FINAL PROJECT 9 ReferencesAHAVA, ZAREMBSKI. (2008, November 18). A brave new philanthropic world. Jerusalem Post,16. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand.Anonymous (1997) An Overview of the Crisis: The Cuban missile crisis. Think Quest. Retrieved from, D. (2010). Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(1), 39-57.Josephs, L.. (2010). The Co-Evolution of Sexual Desire, Narcissistic Vulnerability, and Adaptations for Reproductive Advantage. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 38(1), 3-25. Retrieved October 3, 2010, from ProQuest Psychology Journals. (Document ID: 1992302211).OConnell, Terry. (2001, October). "Coopetition": The marriage of cooperation and competition. Robotics World, 19(8), 6. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from Research Library.Roszkowska, E., & Burns, T. (2010). Fuzzy Bargaining Games: Conditions of Agreement, Satisfaction, and Equilibrium. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(5), 421-440. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from ProQuest Psychology Journals.Smith, G. (2010). SEE Productivity: Shared value is not a zero-sum game. Management Services, 54 (2), 20-24.
  10. 10. FINAL PROJECT 10