Zero Sum Agreement

These findings suggest that political ideology correlates significantly with the extent to which people view the distribution of wealth as a zero sum. However, since the Global Value Survey only examines zero-sum thinking in relation to economic issues, we have not been able to examine a crucial aspect of our prediction: that the relationship between ideology and zero-sum thinking depends on whether the status quo is challenged or maintained. Therefore, in Study 2, we examined how ideology relates to zero-sum thinking on social issues (where the status quo is often challenged in the United States) and economic issues (where the status quo has generally remained unchallenged). Options and futures trading is the next practical example of a zero-sum game scenario, because contracts are agreements between two parties, and if one person loses, the other party wins. While this is a very simplified explanation of options and futures, in general, if the price of that commodity or underlying rises within a given time frame (usually contrary to market expectations), an investor can close the futures contract at a profit. Thus, if an investor wins money on this bet, there will be a corresponding loss and the net result is a transfer of assets from one investor to another. Take, for example, a farmer who buys $500 worth of apple seeds. In a closed universe, this is a zero-sum transaction: the farmer gives money to the store and receives a corresponding amount of seeds. In the real world, however, this is potentially a positive-sum transaction. The farmer will plant these seeds and use the resulting fruits to generate wealth. The store owner will reinvest this money in new products that will hopefully also generate wealth. Ultimately, zero-sum games are usually an intellectual exercise. Under certain circumstances, the zero-sum game accurately describes the real world.

Futures, for example, involve a transaction in which one contract holder pays and the other collects. According to game theory, the game of corresponding cents is often cited as an example of a zero-sum game. The game consists of two players, A and B, who put a penny on the table at the same time. The payment depends on whether the pennies match or not. If both pennies are heads or tails, player A wins and keeps player B`s penny; If they do not match, player B wins and keeps player A`s penny. You want one M&M at a time, but don`t start with that. In this case, one of you always receives an M&M and the other does not. But since there was no M&M to lose, your bottom line is +1/0. This is a net profit, not a zero sum.

The theory of zero-sum games is very different from that of non-zero-sum games, because an optimal solution can always be found. However, this hardly represents the conflicts that the everyday world faces. Problems in the real world usually don`t have easy results. The branch of game theory that best represents the dynamics of the world we live in is called non-zero-sum game theory. Non-zero-sum games differ from zero-sum games in that there is no generally accepted solution. That is, there is no single optimal strategy preferable to all others, nor a predictable result. Non-zero-sum games are also not strictly competitive, unlike fully competitive zero-sum games, as these games usually have both competitive and cooperative elements. Players who are involved in a non-zero-sum conflict have complementary interests and completely opposite interests. Zero-sum thinking can also be understood in terms of narrow causality that refers to the history of the development of individuals in their own lives. .

We cannot display this gallery