4 ms·

Modern Life is so complex. And in many situations , telling whether they're zero sum, is uncertain, and hard. Look at the debates here for example. So people

by petra 7y ago

Modern Life is so complex. And in many situations , telling whether they're zero sum, is uncertain, and hard. Look at the debates here for example. So people default to what they already generally know. They know that society is very competitive. The job market is very competitive. The mating market is very competitive. Zero sum games are everywhere. So it's no wonder they have this cognitive bias.

jlawson 7y ago
It's not just that. Zero sum let's you shift blame for your own failures. You can say someone else took it from you (nefariously). When the game is positive sum, the cause of failure must be internal. You just couldn't do it and there's nobody to blame but you. A lot of people can't handle this. Entire philosophies and like outlooks are driven by this. The external locus of control.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  I disagree that a positive sum game implies an internal cause of failure. Easiest example is inflation. You can be gaining positive ground, but not quickly enough to outrun the entity outside of your control who can wipe out your assets unless you stay ahead of the curve. This is true for many people who didn’t invest in the right capital such as certain real estate, equities, or intellectual property, as efficiency and automation gains means less of the labor is needed. One can claim it’s an internal failure to not invest in the right things, but it’s not reasonable to expect everyone to have that kind of foresight.
TTPrograms 7y ago
None of those markets are really zero-sum. People value different things in all of those markets (jobs etc). Zero-sum is an edge case.
- petra 7y ago
  Interesting answer. The people aiming for a certain position or role mostly care about similar things though. So don't they play a zero sum game ?
  - closeparen 7y ago
    The most effective person gets hired into a role. The firm performs well, moves more product, lowers prices for customers, sends larger orders to its suppliers, invests some surplus in R&D, grows its payroll, generates return for shareholders who then invest their gains in other enterprises, etc. Or an ineffective person is hired and the opposite happens. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
  - TTPrograms 7y ago
    If you had two job offers, one salaried at $100,000 and one at $100,001, I assume you would pick $100,001 with zero consideration for any other factors?
  - lukejduncan 7y ago
    It assumes there is only one fixed org chart and role. This isn’t true everywhere under all circumstances, but my personal experience in tech has been that companies make space for talented people who have a real impact. If you’re fighting over a title, you’ll stagnate. If you’re growing the business and building useful things roles will invent themselves. Especially in the case of competing with an individual over a role, making each other look good is far more valuable than being competitors.
- biql 7y ago
  In dating market, attractive people get most of the attention [1], thus it would be safe to assume that attractiveness is highly valued by the majority and they compete with each other, knowingly or not. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170127222943/https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170127222943/https://blog.okcu...
  - TTPrograms 7y ago
    Attractiveness is not a one-dimensional scale, it is a two-party phenomena.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    The zero-sum here depends on who is who. The competition is zero-sum, but the relationship is not. If the market is to exchange affection, it's positive-sum. If the market is a status good, it's zero-sum.
KirinDave 7y ago
Isn't it strange though? One of the defining characteristics of the most dominant species on the planet is their capacity for sophisticated cooperation and planning.
- petra 7y ago
  Sophisticated cooperation at the scale of the tribe. On the other hand, the market system is a system of massive economic cooperation, and very sucsesful in many important ways. But it's not a great fit for human psychology.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > Sophisticated cooperation at the scale of the tribe. People claim this but it seems to ignore evidence that invalidates all but the least informative definitions of "tribe." > On the other hand, the market system is a system of massive economic cooperation, and very sucsesful in many important ways. I think "successful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence.
    - antidesitter 7y ago
      > I think "successful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. How?
mrrrgn 7y ago
We sort of live in a finite universe in terms of matter and energy right? Conservation laws seem to imply that. So at a large enough scale life would have to be zero sum. I guess what people may actually be arguing about is at what scale the finite aspects of the universe actually matter? On an anecdotal level, while thinking that everything is zero sum all the time probably isn't good, I find that the majority of the people I interact find it very difficult to imagine that anything is "zero sum." Since they associate "zero sum" with mean things like harsh competition. It seems like that's its own sort of "bias."

by petra 7y ago

jlawson 7y ago

It's not just that. Zero sum let's you shift blame for your own failures. You can say someone else took it from you (nefariously). When the game is positive sum, the cause of failure must be internal. You just couldn't do it and there's nobody to blame but you. A lot of people can't handle this. Entire philosophies and like outlooks are driven by this. The external locus of control.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
I disagree that a positive sum game implies an internal cause of failure. Easiest example is inflation. You can be gaining positive ground, but not quickly enough to outrun the entity outside of your control who can wipe out your assets unless you stay ahead of the curve. This is true for many people who didn’t invest in the right capital such as certain real estate, equities, or intellectual property, as efficiency and automation gains means less of the labor is needed. One can claim it’s an internal failure to not invest in the right things, but it’s not reasonable to expect everyone to have that kind of foresight.

TTPrograms 7y ago

None of those markets are really zero-sum. People value different things in all of those markets (jobs etc). Zero-sum is an edge case.

petra 7y ago
Interesting answer. The people aiming for a certain position or role mostly care about similar things though. So don't they play a zero sum game ?
- closeparen 7y ago
  The most effective person gets hired into a role. The firm performs well, moves more product, lowers prices for customers, sends larger orders to its suppliers, invests some surplus in R&D, grows its payroll, generates return for shareholders who then invest their gains in other enterprises, etc. Or an ineffective person is hired and the opposite happens. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
- TTPrograms 7y ago
  If you had two job offers, one salaried at $100,000 and one at $100,001, I assume you would pick $100,001 with zero consideration for any other factors?
- lukejduncan 7y ago
  It assumes there is only one fixed org chart and role. This isn’t true everywhere under all circumstances, but my personal experience in tech has been that companies make space for talented people who have a real impact. If you’re fighting over a title, you’ll stagnate. If you’re growing the business and building useful things roles will invent themselves. Especially in the case of competing with an individual over a role, making each other look good is far more valuable than being competitors.
biql 7y ago
In dating market, attractive people get most of the attention [1], thus it would be safe to assume that attractiveness is highly valued by the majority and they compete with each other, knowingly or not. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170127222943/https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170127222943/https://blog.okcu...
- TTPrograms 7y ago
  Attractiveness is not a one-dimensional scale, it is a two-party phenomena.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  The zero-sum here depends on who is who. The competition is zero-sum, but the relationship is not. If the market is to exchange affection, it's positive-sum. If the market is a status good, it's zero-sum.

KirinDave 7y ago

Isn't it strange though? One of the defining characteristics of the most dominant species on the planet is their capacity for sophisticated cooperation and planning.

petra 7y ago
Sophisticated cooperation at the scale of the tribe. On the other hand, the market system is a system of massive economic cooperation, and very sucsesful in many important ways. But it's not a great fit for human psychology.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > Sophisticated cooperation at the scale of the tribe. People claim this but it seems to ignore evidence that invalidates all but the least informative definitions of "tribe." > On the other hand, the market system is a system of massive economic cooperation, and very sucsesful in many important ways. I think "successful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence.
  - antidesitter 7y ago
    > I think "successful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. How?

mrrrgn 7y ago

We sort of live in a finite universe in terms of matter and energy right? Conservation laws seem to imply that. So at a large enough scale life would have to be zero sum. I guess what people may actually be arguing about is at what scale the finite aspects of the universe actually matter? On an anecdotal level, while thinking that everything is zero sum all the time probably isn't good, I find that the majority of the people I interact find it very difficult to imagine that anything is "zero sum." Since they associate "zero sum" with mean things like harsh competition. It seems like that's its own sort of "bias."