Violence and Hunting as Leadership Games

Instead of seeing violence as an outcome of a PD in which both players have a predatory incentive to kill and steal or of a Trust game in which both players fear that the other will be aggressive, violence can be seen as an outcome of a Leadership game in which the players will do best if one of them leads and the other follows, adequately but not well if neither one leads, and disastrously if they fight one another for leadership.  Sample payoffs for such a "Lead or Yield" game are shown below:

                                                  Other

 

                                  Yield                               Fight to Lead

    Yield           Non-violent Disorder (0, 0)           Order (5, 10)

Self

  Fight to Lead        Order (5, 10)                Violent Disorder (-50, -50)

In a Leadership game, your best response to pacifism or aggression by the other player is opposite what it is in Trust.  In Trust, the best response to aggression is aggression, while in Leadership the best response is to yield.   The best response to pacifism in Trust is pacifism, while in Leadership the best response to pacifism is aggression--or assertion, if one wants to use a more positive term to reflect the value added by the combination of leadership by one player and following by another.

Hunting can also be modeled as a Leadership game rather than a PD or a Trust game.  The best results from the hunt come from one player leading and the other following, with worse results if there is no leadership or a leadership struggle.  Sample payoffs are below:

                                                   Other

                               Yield                                         Lead

    Yield           Lack of leadership (2, 2)            Organized hunt (5, 10)

Self

  Lead               Organized hunt (5, 10)          Leadership struggle (0, 0)