Zero Sum Agreement

However, the entire stock market system should not be considered a zero-sum game, as it does not meet the criteria for being a game with reflective players. Only a person`s performance relative to the stock market index is a game. As far as ultimate causality is concerned, zero-sum thinking could be a legacy of human evolution. In particular, it could be seen as a psychological adaptation that allowed for successful competition of resources around primitive humans, where resources such as mates, status and food were constantly scarce. [4] [15] [3] Rubin, for example, suggests that technological growth was so slow at a time when modern man developed that no individual would have observed growth in his lifetime: “Everyone would live and die in a world of constant technology and income. There was therefore no incentive to develop a mechanism for understanding or planning for growth” (p. 162). [3] Rubin also draws attention to cases where the understanding of lay people and economists about economic situations is divergent, such as. B the error of work. [3] From this point of view, zero-sum thinking could be understood as how people think about allocating resources that, for example, should not be learned through basic economics training. Studies 1 and 2 examined the relationship between ideology and the belief that one party`s profits are offset by the losses of another party.

However, zero-sum thinking involves not only an assumption about the allocation of resources, but also a presumption of incompatibility of interests (16). To study how ideology influences this specific aspect of zero-sum thinking, we randomly assigned 200 participants to one of two conditions. Under the status quo, participants indicated the extent to which trade policy (i.e. policies that generally maintain the status quo) also served the interests of the average U.S. citizen. In the status quo condition called into question, participants indicated the extent to which immigration policy (i.e. policies that generally challenge the status quo) also served the interests of the average American. Participants chose their answers from a series of seven increasingly overlapping circles, each representing the interests of the parties involved. Participants then reported on their political ideology, household income, socio-economic status and various demographics.

These results indicate that political ideology is strongly correlated to the extent to which people view the distribution of wealth as a zero sum. But since the World Value Survey only studies zero-sum thinking, because it refers to economic issues, we have not been able to study a crucial aspect of our prediction: that the relationship between ideology and zero-sum thinking depends on challenging and maintaining the status quo. That is why we examined in Study 2 how ideology is linked 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).

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)

About The Author