Talk:Zero-sum thinking

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Game theory This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

i wish to see also expand to include digital created art tokens like Nfts and or digital token currencies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.77.189 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

In a system where every property transfer is voluntary, the transfer must provide a gain for every involved party, because otherwise that party would not do such a voluntary transfer. Hence such a system is always positive sum. This is a basic example of how free markets are not zero-sum contrary to common believe. 2A01:598:8881:82E7:9741:BEFA:63BB:7786 (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems incoherent to me. People can absolutely act against their own interests I.E. voluntarily trade but not receive a gain (it’s called a scam) 2001:56A:FCFE:E200:D49A:E69:8694:B2E5 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me proving that Zero Sum Thinking constitutes a cognitive bias would also necessitate proving that, in fact, life itself is not Zero Sum. Can we be sure, as this article seems to imply, that the universe contains an infinite amount of matter/goods? How can we verify any situation that we perceive NOT to be Zero Sum indeed actually ISNT. 2001:56A:FCFE:E200:D49A:E69:8694:B2E5 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I just recently heard of this topic, and would agree with what you're positing. I've always believed at the very least that anything non-zero-sum can be represented as zero-sum, given you setup additional parties that simulate the vacuums of exchange. And my cursory understanding is that John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern came to a conclusion like that.

Perhaps the logical trouble is less relevant to application of zero sum conceptually, and more the failure to account for theoretical third parties that can have gains or losses. 152.71.146.66 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

In 2001, a man was convicted of murder because of a single particle of gunshot residue was found on his jacket. While the defense said that the gunshot residue could have came from improper police handling of the evidence, this did not sway the jury to give the man a not guilty verdict. The man turned out to be innocent, but the case showed that when evidence is not definitive, it can lead to wrong conclusions. The question posed should have been did the man commit the crime or not, but the evidence made the question be did the man commit the crime, or did the police mishandle evidence.^[1]

[1]https://journals-sagepub-com.argo.library.okstate.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797618818484 QuillanTaylor (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply