What is a zero-sum game?
In: 115
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.
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.
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.
Zero sum game is when you fight for the pizza with your brother. If you get more pizza, your brother gets less.
An example of non zero sum game is when you go to steal some apples from neighbor with your brother. You can compete against your brother, but the amount of apples you pick does not hinder the amount of apples your brother can pick as there are plenty.
In that example the neighbor gets less apples, so to include him to the equation makes it zero sum game again. And that is how it is often in the world. However, consider picking lingonberries, there are plenty in the forest and if nobody picks them up, they just rot.
Zero sum game is when you fight for the pizza with your brother. If you get more pizza, your brother gets less.
An example of non zero sum game is when you go to steal some apples from neighbor with your brother. You can compete against your brother, but the amount of apples you pick does not hinder the amount of apples your brother can pick as there are plenty.
In that example the neighbor gets less apples, so to include him to the equation makes it zero sum game again. And that is how it is often in the world. However, consider picking lingonberries, there are plenty in the forest and if nobody picks them up, they just rot.
I have an apple and you want it. We play rock, paper, scissors and the winner gets the apple. There is only one apple, so only one person can win by taking from the other person.
A zero-sum game is an activity that distributes rewards/punishments so that they even out to nothing overall. No net-gain or net-loss when you take *everyone* into account.
* If I win a ranked chess game against you, I might take 5 ELO rating points from you. I go +5 and you go -5.
* If I have $100, and share $50 with you, then that means I am down $50.
* If I fire Alice to hire Bob, the same work gets done and the same amount of money is paid overall.
Zero-sum games are typically ‘win-lose’ scenarios like this.
–
It’s easy to think that every ‘game’ is like this. However, not always. Often, one side wins or loses more than the other loses or wins, or maybe both sides win, or maybe both sides lose:
Some positive-sum “games” might be:
* I’m choking on some food and will die, but you do some first aid and save my life. You spent some minor effort in trying to save me, and if it works, you save my entire life. I gain far more than you lost.
* Imagine that there is a nearby forest that we use as a supply of lumber. I know how to make chairs, and you know how to start fires (and neither of know the other skill). If we didn’t cooperate, I’d sit in a chair in the cold, and you’d sit on the ground next to a warm fire. If we cooporate, we can both sit in chairs by the fire. Cooperation costs us little-to-nothing and we both benefit.
* We play a game of chess and both have a fun time. That’s a win-win, in a sense.
Some negative-sum games might be:
* You accidentally burn down our shared forest. Neither of us have any lumber now, so we both lost.
* We get into a fight over who gets to use the last of the firewood. We both fatally wound each other and die from our injuries. We both lost.
* A protest is a lose-lose, at least in the short-term. The protestors bear the inconvenience of protesting instead of doing other things like study/work/hobbies/leisure/rest/etc, and the protest inconveniences others (perhaps the government).
* Strikes are similar to protests. The workers forgoe the chance to working and collect their wage, and the employer doesn’t get the labor of its workforce.
* We play a game of chess, but neither of us like chess, so the time spent on it is lost and we got no enjoyment from it.
* EDIT: and of course wars, where overall there is a loss of life and wealth and materials, and at most one side wins, but they win less than both sides lost collectively.
Note that ‘lose-lose’ games aren’t always bad. Often they are, but I think protests and strikes can be very good forces for change, but they are, in the short term, lose-lose. I think the value of them is in proving that you’re willing to take a lose-lose, and hence pressure the other side to change in order to stop their losses.
Latest Answers