One of the more enlightening ways to think about how humans rationalize their beliefs is through the lens of zero sum thinking. Zero sum thinking is when an individual thinks that a given real world situation is like a zero-sum game, where one person’s gain is another person’s loss.

The name “zero-sum” comes from the fact that when you add the total gains of the participants with the total losses the result is always zero. One example of a zero sum game is the simple game of Odds and Evens. In this game, one player is assigned odds and the other evens. The two players then quickly and simultaneously thrust a fist toward each other extending their finger(s) indicating *one* or *two*. If the sum total is 2 (1+1) or 4 (2+2), evens wins. If the sum total is 3 (2 +1 or 1+2), odds wins. The game is straightforward with a clear winner and loser.

In contrast, a non zero-sum game like Prisoner’s dilemma permits both players the additional outcomes of winning or losing **together**. Unlike Odds and Evens, where you can only win 5 points or lose 5 points (arbitrary number), The Prisoners Dilemma has a spectrum of outcomes ranging from 0-3 years in prison for each person and potentially 4 years of prison collectively. I’ve created the following payoff matrices to highlight the differences between these two games:

The prisoner’s dilemma game (non zero-sum thinking) is often used as a model for many real world situations. Likewise, zero-sum thinking too can be applied to real world scenarios albeit in different contexts. Problems arise however when both types of thinking get applied to the same situation. This clash of thinking is in fact a clash of world views- each side thinking that their version of the ‘game’ is correct. Let’s take a look at some zero-sum thinking in the real world:

**Wealth Inequality**– The rich get rich at the expense of the poor.**Immigration**– More resources for immigrants means less resources for non-immigrants.**Relationships**– Loving more than one person at a time means loving each person less.^{}**Skill Set**– Having more skills means having less aptitude (Jack of all trades, master of none).**Piracy**– Every pirated download is a lost sale (See my Ethics of Piracy article).**Cliques**– Stronger membership in one group is weaker membership in another.

The problem with zero sum thinking is not that these ideas are outright false (indeed, there is *some* truth in these ideas), but rather it’s that these ideas aren’t **necessarily **true. The nature of zero sum thinking is viewing the game through the lens of strict competition, when in reality a winning path that benefits everybody is available. Whether we actually choose cooperation is another question entirely, but it’s important that we know cooperation is an **option**. Perhaps this isn’t the case for every scenario, but it’s true far more often then we’d like to imagine.

Zero-sum thinking is certainly a legacy of human evolution. In environments where resources like mates, status, and food were perpetually scarce, it’s unsurprising that our experiences could generate this kind of psychological adaption though fierce, but successful competition. As mentioned in my Understanding a Science of Morality article, this knowledge is crucial for helping understand human behavior and ultimately developing a better society.

Needless to say, our evolutionary roots and its influences still has many of us thinking reality is a simple game of winners and losers with no other options available. Nevertheless, as the world advances through the expansions of our technologies and wealth, the path of cooperation will reveal itself to be a light on a hill pointing us towards a bright future.