What is a zero-sum game?
In: 115
This is one of those things that might be better understood by looking at an example of a non-zero sum. Understand that ‘game’ simply refers to a model with multiple participants. Politics can be considered a ‘game’ in this context.
Economics is often non-zero sum. For instance if I buy a widget from you for $5, I would have to value that widget above $5 to rationalize handing over the money, and you would have to rationalize the value of the widget at less than $5 to rationalize handing over the widget. Even though we’re $5+1 widget at the start and end, we don’t value it that way. The act of transferring the widget increased its value from you, who presumably can make them for less than $5 to me who presumably *can’t* make them for $5 or less. But that’s harder to see. You have to measure things in the right way to assess whether it’s zero sum or not.
Another classic example is I have two left shoes and you have two right shoes. At the start we have a total of 2 pairs of shoes, but they are effectively worthless to each of us. If we trade one left for one right, we have the same 2 pair of shoes at the end, but now they have value for both of us. In material terms zero sum. In value terms positive sum.
So a zero sum game is *any* game where the outputs are equal to the inputs and the process of the game is nothing more than redistributing those inputs among the participants. There are also negative sum games. Wars are often negative sum. You end up with less than you started – lost lives, destroyed infrastructure, etc. One party might have more at the end than they started with (territory, etc.) but the sum of both parties is lower at the end than at the start. That may still justify the war, though. They may also value the inputs differently – lives lost, etc. A lot of colonialization was industrialized countries securing raw materials that the colonized country didn’t have the technology to make value of.
You see a lot of zero sum in politics, and that should set up alarms. “Immigrants are taking our jobs” is a zero sum argument – that there are a fixed number of jobs being distributed between immigrants and non-immigrants. It presumes that there can’t be new jobs. We know from economic history that immigrants almost always add jobs – and also add other value. If you hear a zero sum argument in politics it’s almost always not just wrong, but wrong and disingenuous.
This is one of those things that might be better understood by looking at an example of a non-zero sum. Understand that ‘game’ simply refers to a model with multiple participants. Politics can be considered a ‘game’ in this context.
Economics is often non-zero sum. For instance if I buy a widget from you for $5, I would have to value that widget above $5 to rationalize handing over the money, and you would have to rationalize the value of the widget at less than $5 to rationalize handing over the widget. Even though we’re $5+1 widget at the start and end, we don’t value it that way. The act of transferring the widget increased its value from you, who presumably can make them for less than $5 to me who presumably *can’t* make them for $5 or less. But that’s harder to see. You have to measure things in the right way to assess whether it’s zero sum or not.
Another classic example is I have two left shoes and you have two right shoes. At the start we have a total of 2 pairs of shoes, but they are effectively worthless to each of us. If we trade one left for one right, we have the same 2 pair of shoes at the end, but now they have value for both of us. In material terms zero sum. In value terms positive sum.
So a zero sum game is *any* game where the outputs are equal to the inputs and the process of the game is nothing more than redistributing those inputs among the participants. There are also negative sum games. Wars are often negative sum. You end up with less than you started – lost lives, destroyed infrastructure, etc. One party might have more at the end than they started with (territory, etc.) but the sum of both parties is lower at the end than at the start. That may still justify the war, though. They may also value the inputs differently – lives lost, etc. A lot of colonialization was industrialized countries securing raw materials that the colonized country didn’t have the technology to make value of.
You see a lot of zero sum in politics, and that should set up alarms. “Immigrants are taking our jobs” is a zero sum argument – that there are a fixed number of jobs being distributed between immigrants and non-immigrants. It presumes that there can’t be new jobs. We know from economic history that immigrants almost always add jobs – and also add other value. If you hear a zero sum argument in politics it’s almost always not just wrong, but wrong and disingenuous.
Five people bring $20 each to the poker table. No matter who wins and who loses, $100 enters the table and $100 goes home with the winner(s). Value at the end of the night minus value at the beginning of the night equals zero, a zero sum game. If one person wins it’s because another person loses.
Now imagine three people, one with bread, one with peanut butter, one with jelly. Each is unhappy with their lunch prospects. They decide to make three peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch. Even if the peanut butter cost more than the jelly, all three of them have benefitted from the arrangement. This is *not* a zero sum game.
All commerce, all the way back to prehistoric barter networks, is based on the idea that you can find an arrangement where ALL parties leave the table better off than how they started.
Five people bring $20 each to the poker table. No matter who wins and who loses, $100 enters the table and $100 goes home with the winner(s). Value at the end of the night minus value at the beginning of the night equals zero, a zero sum game. If one person wins it’s because another person loses.
Now imagine three people, one with bread, one with peanut butter, one with jelly. Each is unhappy with their lunch prospects. They decide to make three peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch. Even if the peanut butter cost more than the jelly, all three of them have benefitted from the arrangement. This is *not* a zero sum game.
All commerce, all the way back to prehistoric barter networks, is based on the idea that you can find an arrangement where ALL parties leave the table better off than how they started.
There’s the definition which other’s have provided, and then there’s what people *mean* when they say it.
Basically when it’s brought up it basically just means that somebody *has* to lose, and there isn’t a scenario where both sides come out on top.
There’s the definition which other’s have provided, and then there’s what people *mean* when they say it.
Basically when it’s brought up it basically just means that somebody *has* to lose, and there isn’t a scenario where both sides come out on top.
A zero sum game is when every time someone gains something, another person loses that same something. In other words there is a fixed amount.
In negotiation sometimes people think they need to trick or manipulate people to get what they want because they think they can only win if someone else looses. But skilled negotiators try to find a way where everyone is better off. A win-win situation is not zero sum because the total amount of “utility” is increased by cooperation.
In other words, in a zero sum game a pie is divided. In a non-zero sum game size of the pie can be increased (or decreased) so everyone gets more pie.
A zero sum game is when every time someone gains something, another person loses that same something. In other words there is a fixed amount.
In negotiation sometimes people think they need to trick or manipulate people to get what they want because they think they can only win if someone else looses. But skilled negotiators try to find a way where everyone is better off. A win-win situation is not zero sum because the total amount of “utility” is increased by cooperation.
In other words, in a zero sum game a pie is divided. In a non-zero sum game size of the pie can be increased (or decreased) so everyone gets more pie.
I always thought of it as betting in roulette. 5 on black, 5 on red. You *should* break even. No loss, no gain. EXCEPT if it lands on green.
I always thought of it as betting in roulette. 5 on black, 5 on red. You *should* break even. No loss, no gain. EXCEPT if it lands on green.
Latest Answers