for exactly the reason you describe, they will be worse at cooperating in games similar to prisoner’s dilemma. they will not be good at coordinating on the ultimatum game.
in addition, they will have a worse reputation.
it’s just not clear to me that valuing your opponent’s loss is long-term favorable across the kinds of decisions that people face as they rise to power.
Which one is motivated to spend more resources on winning this specific game?
right, but… should they? rising in politics involves a sequence of victories. burning more resources than is warranted by the zero-th order power you receive seems long term disadvantageous. i would expect players who are motivated solely by power to accumulate more of it, as they will more wisely spend their available capital.
They are not the same thing, but the size of the reward influences the equation.
The same zero-sum game...
...one person’s potential reward is “I win!” (1 util)
...other person’s potential reward is “I win! also, ahaha, look at those losers crying!” (2 utils)
Which one is motivated to spend more resources on winning this specific game?
for exactly the reason you describe, they will be worse at cooperating in games similar to prisoner’s dilemma. they will not be good at coordinating on the ultimatum game.
in addition, they will have a worse reputation.
it’s just not clear to me that valuing your opponent’s loss is long-term favorable across the kinds of decisions that people face as they rise to power.
right, but… should they? rising in politics involves a sequence of victories. burning more resources than is warranted by the zero-th order power you receive seems long term disadvantageous. i would expect players who are motivated solely by power to accumulate more of it, as they will more wisely spend their available capital.