= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
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.
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.
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...
Can you not see the irony in the title of your post: "Fight Zero-Sum Bias"?
In response to
Fight Zero-Sum Bias
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.
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...
In response to
Fight Zero-Sum Bias
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.
In response to
Awful Austrians
I'm an economics professor in one of the few departments where people specialize in Austrian economics, and after years of exposure to them: I still don't understand what they are claiming. Of course each person ends up with many specific beliefs, and many of those beliefs are correlated with being in that group. But that is not the same as core claims that they share because they are in that group.
If I can't understand someone's claims, and I'm not sure they even have clear claims, then I can't exactly say they are wrong. In contrast, theism does make relatively understandable claims.
You will know a good epistemology by its fruits.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
All parties who gain or lose in the transaction.
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.