Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

effectiviology.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 152 posts

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#81

Post by petra »

KirinDave wrote: post #77
petra wrote: post #21

Modern Life is so complex. And in many situations , telling whether they're zero sum, is uncertain, and hard. Look at the debates here for example. So people default to what they already generally know. They know that society is very competitive. The job market is very competitive. The mating market is very competitive. Zero sum games are everywhere. So it's no wonder they have this cognitive bias.

Isn't it strange though? One of the defining characteristics of the most dominant species on the planet is their capacity for sophisticated cooperation and planning.

Sophisticated cooperation at the scale of the tribe.

On the other hand, the market system is a system of massive economic cooperation, and very sucsesful in many important ways.

But it's not a great fit for human psychology.

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#82

Post by benj111 »

godelski wrote: post #74
benj111 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just the benefit of working as a group though. Bob, Bill, Jill and Joan are already working as a group when Bob and Bill are the bosses. If we make Bill and Jill the bosses we don't inherently gain anything from that. Yes Jill and Joan might work better because they feel appreciated, equally though Bill and Bob could work worse because they've lost something. Hell Joan could still be annoyed because she didn't…

A hierarchy is a group structure. You could even call this a coalition game. We can also say that everyone provides a positive value to the group. We can also say that certain people in certain positions provide more value to a coalition. None of this is zero sum. Someone being placed in a certain position does not require value being taken from elsewhere. This is not required in a hierarchical job structure. A zero…

"A zero sum game is one in which where one player gains value that results in another player losing value"

Yes that's what I'm contending. There can only be one boss, one deputy boss, one assistant deputy boss.

Your point about putting the right person in the right role is a fair point, but its from an organisational POV, not from an individual POV. If I'm the deputy manager, and I get demoted because Tina is a better fit, I have lost, and Tina has gained by the same amount. For Tina and I, it is a zero sum game. I am not misinterpreting that situation as a zero sum game, because for me it is a zero sum game.

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#83

Post by KirinDave »

petra wrote: post #81
KirinDave wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it strange though? One of the defining characteristics of the most dominant species on the planet is their capacity for sophisticated cooperation and planning.

Sophisticated cooperation at the scale of the tribe. On the other hand, the market system is a system of massive economic cooperation, and very sucsesful in many important ways. But it's not a great fit for human psychology.

> Sophisticated cooperation at the scale of the tribe.

People claim this but it seems to ignore evidence that invalidates all but the least informative definitions of "tribe."

> On the other hand, the market system is a system of massive economic cooperation, and very sucsesful in many important ways.

I think "successful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence.

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#84

Post by robocat »

nostrademons wrote: post #36
gnicholas wrote: post #17

> people tend to assume that if a product is superior in one dimension then it must be inferior in other dimensions. Assuming price is one of the dimensions, this is generally a true statement. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of best-in-class products that are cheaper than inferior competitors. This can occur for products sold at massive scale and with large tooling costs. This dynamic enables the producers of premium pr…

In a way this is a restatement of the efficient-market hypothesis. If the market is efficient, then a product that is inferior in most or all dimensions will be forced out of the market by one that is superior. Therefore, if you believe in efficient markets and observe that both products are still offered for sale, it's a reasonable inference that the superior product must be inferior in some way that you haven't yet…

I think your argument somewhat presumes that we all agree on some platonic ideal of a product.

Let's pick restaurants as as product: I have some favourite restaurants that for me beat most other restaurants on multiple dimensions (taste, freshness, service, location, price). And there are very popular restaurants I rate poorly on multiple dimensions.

I know other products that I think are both cheaper and better than the competitors, but I can't think of any products where I have many many purchases within the sample space of different products.

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#85

Post by nerdponx »

godelski wrote: post #51

One of my favorites is the economy. People constantly talk about there only being a finite number of resources or money. While this is true, there is not a finite amount of wealth. The whole point of an economy is to generate new wealth and goods. Inventions and innovations. It is easy to see when you take the historical perspective, that the vast majority of us are living much better off than those a hundred years a…

While this is true, there is not a finite amount of wealth. The whole point of an economy is to generate new wealth and goods. Inventions and innovations.

This is a frustrating hand-wave that I've been subjected to for far too long. It's absolutely possible that there is a finite amount of wealth.

Moreover, even in an economy with positive growth, if a small fraction of individuals capture a large enough amount of the growth, wealth has effectively been capped for everyone else.

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#86

Post by naniwaduni »

pessimizer wrote: post #58
gnicholas wrote: post #17

> people tend to assume that if a product is superior in one dimension then it must be inferior in other dimensions. Assuming price is one of the dimensions, this is generally a true statement. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of best-in-class products that are cheaper than inferior competitors. This can occur for products sold at massive scale and with large tooling costs. This dynamic enables the producers of premium pr…

When it comes to products, marketing is also one of those dimensions, and can easily swamp the others. It's a good assumption that if you hold price steady, the more marketing, the worse the product. We don't see this because it is often canceled out by economies of scale, which of course are a result of size, and the larger the relative size, the higher amount of marketing as compared to other brands. At the same pr…

It doesn't help that size is partially a result of marketing. At the same production scale, the most marketed product may not be staying at that scale as long (assuming the marketing is being done somewhat efficiently, which perhaps isn't necessarily a good assumption).

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#87

Post by zwkrt »

whatshisface wrote: post #32
zwkrt wrote: post #2

I see people interpret personal comfort as zero sum and it drives me nuts. Like somehow other people being safe and comfortable devalues ones own safety and comfort.

Could you give some examples?

What I was thinking of as I typed that comment was people who begrudge increases in the standard of living for those in poverty. I see this in two forms. The first and most direct form I see is when people don’t want minimum wage to increase because it means their own wage becomes closer to the minimum. The second and more insidious form I see is in judging the entire concept of “poverty” in a critical light. I recall my mother being furious that the average person below the poverty line had a color TV (this was in the 90s). I would think in a progressive and loving society we might celebrate the fact that what we consider our poorest citizens have access to technology and new niceties.

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#88

Post by godelski »

nerdponx wrote: post #85
godelski wrote: post #51

One of my favorites is the economy. People constantly talk about there only being a finite number of resources or money. While this is true, there is not a finite amount of wealth. The whole point of an economy is to generate new wealth and goods. Inventions and innovations. It is easy to see when you take the historical perspective, that the vast majority of us are living much better off than those a hundred years a…

While this is true, there is not a finite amount of wealth. The whole point of an economy is to generate new wealth and goods. Inventions and innovations. This is a frustrating hand-wave that I've been subjected to for far too long. It's absolutely possible that there is a finite amount of wealth. Moreover, even in an economy with positive growth, if a small fraction of individuals capture a large enough amount of th…

First off, I hope it is clear that I am talking long trends and not local ones. I thought this would be apparent with phrases like "just a thousand years." What I'm saying is that the vast majority of people on this planet have better access to food, clean water, medicine, housing, etc than our ancestors did. I mean we have AC and people a few hundred years ago had shade and fans. This does not mean that inequality does not exist, nor does it mean that we've made the world a great place and no longer need to improve. It doesn't even say how much further we need to go, just "things have gotten better for most people." If you read my comment that way I do not think it is deniable, but fact. Interpreting it conversely is frustrating because I clearly stated longer trends, not locality.

Second off, inequality can still exist in positive sum games. You can even have players which have gained negative utility. Positive sum just means that the total utility from all the players is positive. Doesn't say anything about exploitation, fairness, etc.

Third, I'd argue that part of the presumption of a zero sum game is a problem in capitalism. Since many people see "games" as "if I don't get x then that is equivalent to losing x". Or "if person has x then I can't have x". This is the "we both can't be wealthy" mentality or "you having more wealth than me means you're better than me" mentality. Given your comment I think you'd agree that these are destructive mentalities, but they stem from (among many other things) thinking of things as zero sum games. Not that we all can be winners.

That said, I do think systems can be exploited and there can be bad actors. But that's not really what we're talking about here is it?

I also want to be clear. When I say there is not a finite amount of wealth I am assuming time exists. At any given instance there is only a finite amount of wealth. As time progresses it either increases or decreases. I am saying that given a large enough time frame (which don't have to be that large) the trend is of increasing wealth/resources.

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#89

Post by biql »

godelski wrote: post #51

One of my favorites is the economy. People constantly talk about there only being a finite number of resources or money. While this is true, there is not a finite amount of wealth. The whole point of an economy is to generate new wealth and goods. Inventions and innovations. It is easy to see when you take the historical perspective, that the vast majority of us are living much better off than those a hundred years a…

For humans, yes. For other species, sadly, the last hundred years were most likely devastating. Which make me think that in the end, it is a zero sum game as long as we remain on the same planet and don't recycle our waste.

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#90

Post by godelski »

benj111 wrote: post #82
godelski wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hierarchy is a group structure. You could even call this a coalition game. We can also say that everyone provides a positive value to the group. We can also say that certain people in certain positions provide more value to a coalition. None of this is zero sum. Someone being placed in a certain position does not require value being taken from elsewhere. This is not required in a hierarchical job structure. A zero…

"A zero sum game is one in which where one player gains value that results in another player losing value" Yes that's what I'm contending. There can only be one boss, one deputy boss, one assistant deputy boss. Your point about putting the right person in the right role is a fair point, but its from an organisational POV, not from an individual POV. If I'm the deputy manager, and I get demoted because Tina is a bette…

I understand then. We're talking about two different games. (I believe) You're talking about the game of obtaining positions. Yes, those games are "mostly" zero sum.

I am talking about a game which describes how well off everyone in the structure is. This is part of why I say "mostly" above, because if the structure is functioning efficiently it can expand and new allocations can be made, but I'd agree that in that instance it is again a zero sum for obtaining those positions (but now with more allocations than the previous game).

Post reply on HN