Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Zero-sum game
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Misunderstandings == Zero-sum games and particularly their solutions are commonly misunderstood by critics of [[game theory]], usually with respect to the independence and [[Rational choice theory|rationality]] of the players, as well as to the interpretation of utility functions{{Explain|date=April 2022|reason=This phrase is unhelpful and unclear. As it does not clarify on the typical ways critics misunderstand the topic, assumes that criticism stem from the topic being misunderstood, and does not have references to expand on that.}}. Furthermore, the word "game" does not imply the model is valid only for recreational [[game]]s.<ref name="Binmore2007">{{cite book|author=Ken Binmore|title=Playing for real: a text on game theory|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eY0YhSk9ujsC|year=2007|publisher=Oxford University Press US|isbn=978-0-19-530057-4|author-link=Ken Binmore}}, chapters 1 & 7</ref> Politics is sometimes called zero sum<ref>{{cite news|last=Rubin |first=Jennifer |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/10/04/the-flaw-in-zero-sum-politics/ |title=The flaw in zero sum politics |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=2013-10-04 |access-date=2017-03-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595973-voters-think-both-parties-are-telling-truth-about-how-awful-other-lot-are-zero-sum |title=Lexington: Zero-sum politics |newspaper=The Economist |date=2014-02-08 |access-date=2017-03-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite dictionary|url=http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zero-sum-game |title=Zero-sum game | Define Zero-sum game at |dictionary=Dictionary.com |access-date=2017-03-08}}</ref> because in common usage the idea of a stalemate is perceived to be "zero sum"; politics and [[macroeconomics]] are not zero-sum games, however, because they do not constitute [[conservation law|conserved systems]].{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}. Applying zero-sum game logic to scenarios that are not zero-sum in nature may lead to incorrect conclusions. Zero-sum games are based on the notion that one person's win will result in the other person's loss, so naturally there is competition between the two. There are scenarios, however, where that is not the case. For instance, in some cases both sides cooperating and working together could result in both sides benefitting more than they otherwise would have. By applying zero-sum logic, we in turn create an unnecessary, and potentially harmful, sense of scarcity and hostility.<ref>{{Cite web|title=What does it mean to see the world as a zero-sum competition?|url=https://www.gatescambridge.org/about/news/what-does-it-mean-to-see-the-world-as-a-zero-sum-competition/|website=Gates Cambridge|language=en}}</ref> Therefore, it is critical to make sure that zero-sum applications fit the given context.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)