The document discusses the concept of coo-petition, which is cooperation and competition. It summarizes two studies that examined coo-petition through game theory experiments involving college students playing simple 2x2 games and computer programs simulating the same game. The results showed that coo-petition strategies that cooperate until provoked but then forgive and continue cooperating produced the highest payoffs. Coo-petition is important for human and species survival as humans must work together and compete against environmental threats.

1. Running head: FINAL PROJECT 1
M8A1: Final Project
Christopher Ruper
Argosy University

2. FINAL PROJECT 2
Abstract
Coo-petition is essential to human existence. The study of game theory takes very large games
and makes them simple. Coo-petition is the action of cooperating and competing. Consider three
zebras 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 zebra
would be cooperating with the lions and competing for its survival. Thus coo-petition is
important to all living organisms.

3. FINAL PROJECT 3
Final Paper
Intro
Coo-petition is the act to cooperating in a competition for mutual benefit; an example
would be the classic game of monopoly. In this game the players compete with one another to
earn money and not go bankrupt. However, players make deals with one another, cooperate, in
order to complete their property series so they can build houses and make more money from
other players. “The idea that only through cooperation will costs be driven down and the
magnitude of success enhanced is integral to the thinking of true business leaders. In today's
world, even the greatest competitors are cooperating,” (Ahava).
In game theory a game has to have at least two players, strategies/decisions to make, and
payoffs for the strategies. “Social theory concepts such as norm, value, belief, role, social
relationship, and institution as well as game can be defined in a uniform way in terms of rules
and rule complexes,” (Roszkowska, 2010). In human evolution humans must cooperate with
their environment and compete for their survival. To prevent from going extinct humans must
master coo-petition.
The players in the game of human evolution are humans and the environment. The
strategies are the ones that humans make in everyday life. The payoffs are the things that are won
or lost by the strategies used. In terms of philanthropy “The philanthropist/investor not only gets
a 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. FINAL PROJECT 4
Nature also plays a huge role in human survival; such as great catastrophes like
volcanoes, asteroids, hurricanes, earthquakes…Even though nature often produces random
events, people can still work together and help each other get past them and ensure the survival
of the species. “Coopetition requires alliance partners to understand that they will cooperate and
compete,” (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. The
participants in the first study were the college math students. The participants of the second study
was a collection of many people; ranging from a little kid to adults. There were no restrictions on
the entry. A second study of the computer was also held and this competition had more
participants with the same exact parameters.
The instruments used in the college math class were a handout given by the teacher and a
record of the results which was made by the teacher. The instrument used in the computer study
was computer programs; one of the participants programs and one for the simulated game. A
record of the results of this game was also kept.
The college math students and players of the computer game played a simple 2x2 game
in their experiment. It was a replica of the famous Prisoners Dilemma game. Each party chose
either option one or two at the same time for 100 rounds. The only knowledge that the players
had was of the decisions of the previous rounds. The results were recorded during each game.

5. FINAL PROJECT 5
Results
The results of the experiment were interesting. They coincided with things that people do
in 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 would
immediately defect. It would also forgive the opponent and cooperate on the next round after it
defected. It was straight forward in its strategy and often gained cooperation from its opponents
by the end of the game. The results still showed that cooperation with between two people will
produce 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 affect
the external validity of the results. Another affect on the external validity is the winning strategy
may not be the best strategy for every even in the real world, so the results may not be
generalized. Since the game was played for 100 rounds the students could have gotten bored and
lost concentration; maturation would affect the internal validity of the test. “Among the most
researched solutions to social dilemmas is communication. Since the late 1950s, it has been well
known that communication enhances cooperation in social dilemmas,” (Balliet, 2010). Subject

6. FINAL PROJECT 6
selection may also be an issue because the college math students are not necessarily selected at
random.
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 making
process. The study does not provoke this emotion as no one‟s life or millions of dollars are on
the 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 real
world decisions. Animals could also be studied to see if they will conform naturally to the higher
payoff strategies. “Most of the really important 'games' in life are non-zero-sum games, but they
are played as if they are zero-sum games. The way you win a zero-sum game is to compete. The
way you 'win' a non-zero-sum game is to collaborate.” (Smith, 2010).
In international politics coo-petition is essential in preventing wars and solving
problems. Although the term was created after the Cuban Missile Crisis it could have been
applied to this situation. “The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to
nuclear war. The United States armed forces were at their highest state of readiness ever and
Soviet 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, working
together as humans, rather than enemies, is more important to the human race. Coo-petition in
this case was used indirectly to prevent nuclear war and the deaths of many humans. As humans
we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living thing on this planet many times over; so
it is important for the survival of humans that countries learn to communicate with one another in
order to prevent a global disaster caused by humans. There are many other things that threaten

7. FINAL PROJECT 7
the survival of humans and humans should not be the cause of their own destruction; rather as
tool to prevent the extinction on the human race.
Other global disasters seem to be looming in the future for humans. Things falling to
earth from space, massive volcano eruptions, pollution, the sun exploding…although some of
these things are not suppose to be happening for a long time, such as the sun exploding, they all
will threaten human survival sometime in the future. The countries of the earth must not be
separated when it comes to global catastrophes; it is everyone‟s responsibility to help minimize
the damages. Coo-petition must be used in these cases. Countries must cooperate and compete
against catastrophes that threaten human survival. Combining intelligent minds so they are able
to communicate with one another around the world is one way of achieving this goal. Another
way is to combine recourses so that the costs of preventing a global disaster are limited and the
financial burden is spread out around the globe. Many preventative measures in the present day
have not been established because the costs are either too great for one country, the technology
must be developed, and/or more knowledge must be created. Countries being able to work freely
together will speed up the process and help the human race.
In the games humans play, “According to evolutionary psychologists humans possess a
variety of „sexual ornaments,‟ physical as well as psychological traits that have evolved as
adaptations for reproductive advantage. These sexual ornaments serve as sexually selected
indicators of fitness that are automatically assessed, inspire attentional adhesion, and evoke
sexual desire in those searching for a mate,” (Josephs, 2010). A human must compete against
other humans to find mates. Coo-petition can exist here by humans working together to find
mates 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. FINAL PROJECT 8
humans; normally a male and a female, but it does not have to be limited to that. They must work
together to increase the survival rate of the offspring that is being raised; whether the offspring
was created from that couple or through adoption. The couples themselves must also work
together to prevent financial ruin and budget their money together. Furthermore human offspring
relies heavily on its parental figures for support and survival in the early years of its life; until the
human can take care of itself. Coo-petition in these cases provides more success for each
individual when they learn to cooperate with one another.
Many games exist for humans and the survival games are the most important for the
continued existence of our species. Coo-petition must be used by humans, whether directly or
indirectly, to ensure survival; both of the human individual and of the human species. In early
years 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 more
they will gain. Coo-petition is going to be used in the future, as it is being used today, to explain
many things that are occurring and for the prevention of disasters. It is now being introduced to
many different departments of education not just mathematics. More research and studies need to
be done for further mastery of the topic.

9. FINAL PROJECT 9
References
AHAVA, 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 http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/index.html
Balliet, 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).
O'Connell, 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. FINAL PROJECT 10