When I was in school, both the business and policy schools had at some point taught a lesson or two about cooperation. We learned about the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, where two people can either cooperate or defect. If both parties cooperate, both parties win, and the total benefit distributed is maximized. If one party cooperates, the defector wins more than if both parties had cooperated, but the total benefit distributed is less. If both parties defect, no one gets anything, and there is no benefit distributed.
The temptation to defect tends to be a very strong anti-social force in human behavior.
So how do we come to cooperate with one another? New research recently yielded a model on the evolution of cooperation:
Whether you’re a free-loading virus or a meat-stealing monkey, selfishness pays. So how could cooperators survive in a cheater’s world? Thomas Flatt, a postdoctoral research associate at Brown, was part of a group that created a theoretical model that neatly solves this dilemma, which has stumped evolutionary biologists and social scientists for decades. The trick: Keep the altruists in small groups, away from the swindling horde, where they multiply and migrate.
Previous research by Robert Axelrod yielded a mathematical formula that consistently beat out other players in prisoner’s dilemma challenges. The new Flatt model will now offer a new dimension to the study of cooperation, with applications in both economics and biology.




