therewaslight comments on Fight Zero-Sum Bias - Less Wrong

25 Post author: multifoliaterose 18 July 2010 05:57AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: therewaslight 19 July 2010 06:55:42PM 1 point [-]

But how do you resolve a situation where there is actually only enough of a resource for one individual or group in a positive-sum manner? The historical record is clear that there are zero-sum situations, and in those situations there can be only one winner.

I don't believe you when you say we live in a world of abundant resources or that we can simply create new resources or that we can design a perpetual motion society of "lasting prosperity".

An argument between you and me over your thesis would not end in two winners. I think it's a silly, ideological, unscientific proposal that is unquantifiable in all its essentials.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 20 July 2010 06:37:35AM * 13 points [-]

An argument between you and me over your thesis would not end in two winners.

It should. When two people disagree, something is amiss, and when the truth is more clearly discovered, both learn something, maybe a little bit for the person who was right, much more for the person who was wrong. And the only way to discover that you are the person who was wrong, the person who would benefit the most, is to make yourself perceptive to good argument.

Comment author: WrongBot 20 July 2010 03:45:41PM 0 points [-]

This is incredibly well-stated; could we get this or something like it added to the welcome post?

Comment author: orthonormal 20 July 2010 02:50:27AM 8 points [-]

An argument between you and me over your thesis would not end in two winners.

If you don't think that arguing about ideas can/should be positive-sum, this may not be the site for you.

Comment author: sketerpot 20 July 2010 04:22:36AM 2 points [-]

The claim is not that all situations are positive-sum, but that people tend to see positive-sum situations as zero-sum because that feels natural and intuitive. You're arguing against a straw man.

Comment author: therewaslight 20 July 2010 10:18:13AM -2 points [-]

and I have a match... as long as situations have the potential to be regarded by the unit of winner (individual, family, group?) as zero-sum then you're stuffed.

as I said below resolving a situation as positive-sum just shifts the zero-sum situation to another level: e.g. you vote in a Hawk|Dove leader as President, it's a win-win for sub-state groups but your state loses versus both the Doves and Hawks.

Comment author: therewaslight 19 July 2010 07:21:04PM 0 points [-]

Another thing - what is your unit of winner?

The individual? The family? The group?

You are assuming scenarios such as Person A versus Person B, etc. What about Person A1 versus Group A which consists of Person Ans when there is simultaneous a game played between Group A and Group B?

Person A1 wants to be leader of Group A, and is in a run off with Person A2 for the role. Person A1 is running on making Group A's economy sound but Person A2 promises to protect Group A against threats made by Group B.

How can this situation, which is a very common trade-off in politics, be resolved in a positive-sum way? Seems to me you can only work a "positive-sum" solution by sweeping the zero-sum problem to another level of analysis.

If the skills of A1 and A2 are used together, that is a positive-sum alternative, but Group A will then not have sufficient protection and lose against Group B - so Group A loses the zero-sum game. If only A1 or A2 become the leader then either A1 or A2, and the alternative trajectories they stood for, will have lost.

What about Group A and Group B getting together to decide to share power? Group A and Group B are comprised of Person Ans and Person Bns. Ans and Bns have different life priorities...

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 July 2010 03:57:00PM 2 points [-]

You're missing the point. The claim being made is not that zero sum situations don't exist. The argument being made by the essay is that non-zero sum situations exist and that it is a problem when people erroneously label non-zero sum situations as zero sum situations.

Comment author: therewaslight comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 July 2010 10:32:07PM * 4 points [-]

no, I'm right: in the example above a situation can simultaneously be zero-rum and positive-sum. depends on which level of analysis you look at: individual or the group. the multi-level issue is just one of the many fatal flaws in the proposal.

I'm afraid that I don't see how your argument holds water, and simply saying you are correct and repeating your earlier claim fails to help. No one is claiming that there aren't zero sum situations, or claiming that there aren't situations that might be zero sum or non-zero sum depending on the level of analysis. The claim being made is that there are situations which are unambiguously not zero sum. You haven't addressed that.

tell me: is the author's "fight" against zero-sum bias only applicable to situations where a positive-sum outcome is possible or does the struggle against zero-sumness apply generally i.e. we should fight our internal zero-sum biases in all situations in case one of them is actually a positive-sum situation that we might miss?

This question makes me wonder if you have read the sequences (they are linked at the upper right hand of the LW page). In general, whenever we have any cognitive bias, the best thing to do is to reduce that cognitive bias. Thus, we should try to be aware when a given bias (in this case a tendency to see zero sum situations where it is not) might be showing up.

if it's a general struggle that applies to every situation then the individual can't achieve a positive-sum life because there would be Hawkish situations in which the positive-summer (Dove) would lose.

It may help for you to read the Sequences. No one is claiming that one should act like something is not zero sum when it is. Dealing with a cognitive bias is not accomplished by doing everything the exact opposite of what that bias would push you towards. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Fighting a cognitive bias doesn't mean assuming the exact opposite. It means being aware of the bias and being alert for when the bias may be influencing judgment.

btw the English language has a word for individuals who wrongly label zero-sum situations as positive-sum: naïve. I can't think of a word to describe individuals who wrongly label positive-sum situations as zero-sum but maybe I'm not trying hard enough...

And the limits of the English language matters for these purposes why exactly?

Also, is it possible, if you please, to work a tiny bit on your grammar and punctuation? They make it harder to read what you have to say. I suspect that they are one, somewhat superficial reason you are being voted down. Capitalizing the first word in each sentence would be a nice start.

Comment author: therewaslight 21 July 2010 10:34:21PM 1 point [-]

//The claim being made is that there are situations which are unambiguously not zero sum.//

I don't disagree with that claim.

//You haven't addressed that.//

A man called Nick Clegg recently took the advice of the author and acted against his zero-sum bias and decided to work with a leader from an opposition political party in a coalition government.

The outcome was positive-sum for Nick Clegg because he got to be Deputy Prime Minister, and for David Cameron because he got to be Prime Minister.

However, a lot of Liberal Democrat and Conservative voters (who as a group were represented by the two party leaders) got angry because they thought the situation of who should govern Britain was a zero-sum contest.

In this situation should the group have overcome its supposed zero-sum bias and urged the leaders to cooperate? Or perhaps they were right in their protests that it was a zero-sum situation, as the leadership deal, which is neither Conservative or Liberal, may turn out to be entirely self-serving for the careers of the two young party leaders and bad for Britain.

The proposed advice is not of use to this real world application.

//It may help for you to read the Sequences. No one is claiming that one should act like something is not zero sum when it is. Dealing with a cognitive bias is not accomplished by doing everything the exact opposite of what that bias would push you towards. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Fighting a cognitive bias doesn't mean assuming the exact opposite. It means being aware of the bias and being alert for when the bias may be influencing judgment.//

I'll take time to do so. I'm attracted to Bayesianism but I feel all this fighting business is getting away from science.

//Also, is it possible, if you please, to work a tiny bit on your grammar and punctuation?//

Capitals are back. I'll take the hit for the grammar and punctuation.

Comment author: LucasSloan 21 July 2010 10:55:55PM * 2 points [-]

In Less Wrong, you get a quote by putting a ">" in front of a line. There's a button labeled "Help" under the box where you input comments that explains the formatting.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 July 2010 11:01:11PM 0 points [-]

Ok, minor note, the standard quote format on LW uses a ">" at the beginning of what you want to quote.

I don't disagree with that claim.

Then you don't seem to actually disagree much with the essay in question.

The proposed advice is not of use to this real world application.

So? It isn't going to apply in every situation. I'm going to try to make this point one last time because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: The claim isn't that we should see situations as not zero sum when they are, or that we shouldn't be careful to consider what the sums are for different groups. The assertion is that people have a tendency to see things as zero sum even when they are not. Do you see why giving an example that is zero sum in some sense and not in another doesn't impact the validity of that claim?

I'm attracted to Bayesianism but I feel all this fighting business is getting away from science.

Unfortunately, humans are not naturally good Bayesianisms. We're not even naturally good traditional rationalists. We have a lot of cognitive biases. When we talk on LW about fighting we mean fighting against those biases so we can reason more accurately. Don't confusion fighting with some sort of deep ideological meaning. In this sense, fighting means something like grappling with oneself. The only ones we are fighting with is our imperfect reasoning algorithms that evolved to handle a very different environment.

Comment author: therewaslight 22 July 2010 12:09:24PM 0 points [-]

The assertion is that people have a tendency to see things as zero sum even when they are not. Do you see why giving an example that is zero sum in some sense and not in another doesn't impact the validity of that claim?

Yes, but why is it new and useful information to know that people might have a zero-sum bias when one is aware one does not have an objective way to decide whether one should act to correct it in any given situation - i.e. should preference be given to the individual or the group, or the group or groups?

The concept "fight zero-sum bias" is just another way to say "think positive", "always look on the bright side of life", "be optimistic". It's nothing new, except the word "fight" makes this version war-like.

Unfortunately, humans are not naturally good Bayesianisms. We're not even naturally good traditional rationalists. We have a lot of cognitive biases. When we talk on LW about fighting we mean fighting against those biases so we can reason more accurately. Don't confusion fighting with some sort of deep ideological meaning. In this sense, fighting means something like grappling with oneself. The only ones we are fighting with is our imperfect reasoning algorithms that evolved to handle a very different environment.

I find the use of the word "fight" disconcerting. It's a messy word. The way we think is a mechanical process. If there is a right way to think it has the potential to be explained. The word "fight", which carries emotional and irrational connotations, need never be invoked. I don't think this is a trivial point.

It's possible that a zero-sum scenario may appear positive-sum once the zero-sum bias has been corrected, but that is merely a short term illusion because the fate of the individual is also tied to that of the group.

Also I disagree with the idea human psychology has evolved to "think the worst" of each other. Can it be proved we have a zero-sum bias? In many situations it would be more helpful to counter positive-sum bias - in Ponzi schemes, for example, not everyone can be a winner.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 22 July 2010 10:33:32PM 0 points [-]

Yes, but why is it new and useful information to know that people might have a zero-sum bias when one is aware one does not have an objective way to decide whether one should act to correct it in any given situation - i.e. should preference be given to the individual or the group, or the group or groups?

Well, in general, being more aware of biases makes one more able to compensate for them if one has some set of goals. Many LWers are utilitarians for example in which case the group, indeed, the largest group, is all that's relevant. In that context, this sort of bias could serously matter.

I find the use of the word "fight" disconcerting. It's a messy word. The way we think is a mechanical process. If there is a right way to think it has the potential to be explained. The word "fight", which carries emotional and irrational connotations, need never be invoked.

This may be a good point. To myself the word fight doesn't have such strong connotations but it may very well do so for lots of people.

Also I disagree with the idea human psychology has evolved to "think the worst" of each other. Can it be proved we have a zero-sum bias? In many situations it would be more helpful to counter positive-sum bias - in Ponzi schemes, for example, not everyone can be a winner.

This seems like a very good point. Foolish optimism of that sort is very common. The Ponzi scheme example is a very good one which seriously undermines the central claim in the essay.

Comment author: orthonormal 20 July 2010 07:15:24PM 2 points [-]

the positive-summer (Dove) would lose

Just because a game can be positive-sum doesn't mean dove-like strategies are the best option. See Schelling for examples.

Comment author: JanetK 20 July 2010 04:56:03PM 2 points [-]

label uncooperative?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 20 July 2010 05:28:17PM 1 point [-]

Cynical?

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 20 July 2010 05:38:43PM 0 points [-]

Another thing - what is your unit of winner?

All parties who gain or lose in the transaction.

Comment author: therewaslight 20 July 2010 09:14:33PM 0 points [-]

Sorry, I don't understand. Since when was the loser the winner?

What I mean is when Individual A and Individual B agree on a solution to ruling State X those INDIVIDUALS are the winners - the individual is the unit of winner.

But simultaneously there is a game going on between State X and State Y. The resolution of the leadership contest between A and B may have been positive-sum at the level of the individuals involved but what about at the level of the State?

And if it is bad for the state then it is bad for the individuals so what appeared to be a positive-sum outcome was actually an illusion, due to the multi-level problem. This has yet to be addressed by anyone.

To recap my very general position: the essay is ideological, not scientific. The title says everything.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 July 2010 10:38:20PM * 1 point [-]

To recap my very general position: the essay is ideological, not scientific. The title says everything.

What does this mean? What do you mean by ideological and what do you mean by scientific? The point of Less Wrong is to be, well, less wrong. Is that an ideological goal? We like reducing cognitive biases and getting a better understanding of reality. Do you consider that to be ideological? And if this essay is ideological rather than scientific, why does that matter?

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 20 July 2010 10:31:40PM 1 point [-]

i misunderstood your post. The unit of winner is an individual - that seems pretty obvious in this context. Organizations don't act, only individuals.

What I was talking about (and what I thought you were asking) was the group of people you use to judge whether the game is zero sum or not, and that is... All parties who gain or lose in the transaction.

And if it is bad for the state then it is bad for the individuals...

Just no. If hurting the state helps one individual gain more power over the state, it can certainly benefit that individual.

Comment author: therewaslight 19 July 2010 08:35:52PM -1 points [-]

Can you not see the irony in the title of your post: "Fight Zero-Sum Bias"?

therewaslight comments on Fight Zero-Sum Bias - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (153)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (153)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login