>[...]according to insights from trust research (Fetchenhauer & Dunning, 2010), when people endorse a cynical stance concerning others and consequently forgo trust, they usually do not even get a chance to learn whether their untrustworthiness assumption was correct and being cynical thus spared them a “loss”—or whether it was incorrect and therefore denied them a “win.” In other words, cynicism often precludes the possibility of experiencing negative outcomes. As a result, it might be perceived as a smarter, more successful strategy and cynical individuals might be attributed higher levels of competence than their less cynical counterparts. After all, they are highly unlikely to be betrayed, deceived, and exploited, whereas it usually remains unknown whether their cynicism resulted in missed opportunities.

This seems to be the main point: a loss aversion regarding trust.

Ultimately, in order to really succeed at any big endeavor involving more than one person "trust" is essential. At some point the experience of "betrayal" (or "rejection" in another social context) will be inevitable and without the resources (social/financial support) to build up trust again, this negative experience will only be amplified.

"Betrayal" is one of the main drivers of virtually every story, in dramatizations the "cynic" naturally becomes the all-knowing, but without trust (or suspension of disbelief from the audience) there would be no story to tell, no adventure undertaken.

In a sense being cynical is robbing oneself of the richness of possibilities in order to contain the subset of betrayals in them. Those can be very costly and in impoverished circumstances quickly a fatal choice. But in another more harmless contexts one just wants to avoid feeling "dumb" by feeling smart enough to see through the little signs of intrigue and deception all around .... blissfully discarding the whole set and with it the probability of actually doing a smart thing.