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:

1. Wealth Inequality – The rich get rich at the expense of the poor.
2. Immigration – More resources for immigrants means less resources for non-immigrants.
3. Relationships – Loving more than one person at a time means loving each person less.
4. Skill Set – Having more skills means having less aptitude (Jack of all trades, master of none).
5. Piracy – Every pirated download is a lost sale (See my Ethics of Piracy article).
6. 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 are some games that are zero sum), but rather that zero sum games are incomplete or may not be zero sum games at all. The nature of zero sum thinking is viewing the game through the lens of strict competition despite an alternative game being available that can in fact benefit or hurt all participants.

In conclusion, when discussing any issue or ‘game’ determining whether it’s a zero-sum or non zero sum can often help contextualize and add clarity to the conversation.