Zero-Sum Bias

For example, zero-sum bias can lead people to believe that there is competition for a limited resource in one place, but that resource is actually available for free elsewhere. Zero-sum bias can also affect the way people view transactions and transactions. In this case, they mistakenly believe that there should always be one person who benefits the most from the transaction, even when both parties benefit the same. But in a different way. Because zero-sum prejudice makes people believe that for one person to get something, another person must lose the same thing, this prejudice encourages people to believe in the antagonism of social relations. This means that zero-sum bias can lead people to mistakenly believe that within a group, there is competition for specific resources between them and other members of a specific social group. [Sources: 4, 12]

When applied to judgments between groups, the zero-sum heuristic will conclude that the gain of the other group (outer group) means the corresponding loss of their own group (inner group). The zero-sum deviation describes the intuitive judgment of a situation as a zero-sum (that is, comparing the resources received by one party with the corresponding loss of the other party), when in fact it is not zero. Zero-sum bias is a cognitive inference that leads people to (incorrectly) view certain situations as “zero returns”-they believe that one party’s gains are directly offset by the other’s losses. Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias that makes people mistakenly regard certain situations as zero-sum, that is, mistakenly believe that the gains of one party are directly offset by the losses of the other party. [Sources: 2, 4, 5, 12]

Zero-sum deviation is a cognitive deviation from zero-sum thinking; people tend to intuitively judge that the situation is zero, even if it is not. When discussing zero-sum deviation, it is usually assumed that people generally tend to zero-sum thinking, and the solution is that we should be more inclined to treat the situation as a comprehensive positive sum. Similarly, while it makes people more likely to view the situation as a positive number, it sometimes makes them more cooperative, but this factor may be overestimated. [Sources: 8, 11]

Placing two groups in a non-zero-sum situation where cooperation leads to mutual gain and competition leads to mutual loss, as in the Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1961), can conceptually reduce bias to zero-sum (Wright, 2000). ). One of the main ideas of economics is that trade is mutually beneficial, making both sides better than they were before. “One of the mistakes we often make when we think of trading is to view it as a great deal, not a win-win. [Sources: 5, 10]

A situation involving a set of objects is zero sum if the profit of one object represents another loss, while a situation is a positive sum if the participating objects can achieve the best possible result by cooperating with each other. This includes cases where the situation is considered to be a zero sum, which means that the gains of either party in the scenario are directly offset by the losses of the other parties involved, or that domain expansion should be at the expense of one. Decrease of the other. [Sources: 3, 4]

For example, it can be assumed that zero-sum bias is highly egalitarian (Katz and Hass, 1988) and prosocial (Van Lange et al., 1997; Kurzban and Houser, 2005) for people from a collectivist culture. ) Or collectivism (Triandis, 1995). Emotional adaptation can include jealousy (Hill and Buss, 2008), and cognitive adaptation can include zero-sum heuristics, because the achievements of others often mean their own losses, especially for inseparable resources such as peers and senior positions. Rank in an organized hierarchy. Since zero-sum deviation is very beneficial to the survival of early humans, natural selection ensures that it is still an instinctive way of thinking of modern humans. [Sources: 1, 5]

This is a harmful way of looking at the world, not only for others, but also for yourself. A universal belief system about the opposing nature of social relations, shared by people in society or culture, and based on the implicit assumption that there are a limited number of goods in the world, one of them wins the others and loses, and vice versa, [. ..] A relatively lasting and common belief that social relations are like a zero-sum game. In other words, they think that losing one person is gaining another. [Sources: 0]

Some people try to have a principled argument based on the money they bring to the company or the salary of others (higher) in order to do the same work. It should be noted that you need to consider how to create value for the other party. Some people try to get job opportunities by making more money elsewhere, and they can negotiate based on their value to others. [Sources: 7]

In such a context, people gain more resources for themselves by taking resources from others. The ancient people who survived and reproduced most successfully were the ones who intuitively felt that the receipt of resources by one entity could only occur at the expense of the loss of resources by another entity. Thus, a creature that “benefits” from a situation or has more pie can only come at the expense of all other creatures that have suffered a loss or received less pie. [Sources: 1, 3]

If a creature takes a larger piece of the pie, it means that all other creatures should be content with a smaller piece. Therefore, whenever another creature takes one unit of this limited supply – be it a toy, a piece of land or prey – it means that you have one unit less of this resource at your disposal, which increases the chances of you having a hard time surviving. [Sources: 1]

Under nonzero conditions, for example, when unlimited resources are available, applying this heuristic leads to a skewed judgment that the desired resources are no longer available. The relative neglect of opportunity cost in the context of altruistic action can be seen as a form of positive sum. [Sources: 5, 8]

If you feel like there is no alternative but to split the fixed pie, you may not be able to look for places to create value. For example, a child may mistakenly believe that he is in a zero-sum situation when it comes to the love his parents have for him and his siblings, which means that the love they have for the child must come from love. felt for others. This study offers only an introductory look at the roots of such thinking, but it reminds us that our common disagreements on economic issues are rooted in deeper views of the human personality and the fundamental nature of human relations in economic life (and beyond). .). [Sources: 6, 7, 10]

But the vision, enriched by economic history and theology, positions humans not only as mouths devouring the Earth’s resources, but also as productive gardeners and sub-creators, engraved with a divine creative spark. – buyers versus sellers, employees versus employers – we can rethink our work in the global economy as creators and servants, employees and contributors working with our neighbors to paint a big picture of the abundance and harmony of God in society. [Sources: 10]


— Slimane Zouggari


##### Sources #####