I am not sure that zero-sum or positive-sum games translate very well to the hypothetical early human society. You need more analysis to be convincing. What does it mean to have more resources when food cannot be stored and any surplus must be shared with others in the hope that they will do the same in the future? What does ownership or control of resources mean where only what can be carried can be protected? How does game theory cope with gift giving rather than trade? How does game theory work within families? etc.
In a tribe of a fixed small size, food allocation would be mostly zero-sum.
What does it mean to have more resources when food cannot be stored and any surplus must be shared with others in the hope that they will do the same in the future?
Early humans could store meat by smoking or burying it. Also, food surplus wasn’t the normal state of affairs: mostly early humans would have been struggling.
But sure, there would also be cases where reciprocal altruism worked well, which is why humans have such a keen urge for signalling high moral values and loyalty.
I think that what is important is the relative importance of positive sum versus zero sum games in the ancestral environment versus today.
Zero sum bias is an extremely important issue. I think it is the dominant issue adversely affecting economic growth.
During evolutionary time there were many, many things that were all zero-sum. It is hard to think of any that were not. You have to remember that over evolutionary time, the average number of children that each person had was 2. The average woman had 2 children, the average man had 2 children. We know the average was 2 because if the number was different than 2, then over 1,000 generations humans would have expanded to levels we know did not happen, or humans would have gone extinct. (1.025^1,000 = 5e10).
Territory is zero-sum. That is, there is only so much territory and if one person has it, another person doesn’t.
The number of fertile mates per generation is fixed, and so is subject to zero-sum allocation.
Social status is also zero-sum. There are a fixed number of individuals. In the social hierarchy, you are either above someone or below them. If one person moves up, other people have to move down. There is no “absolute” social status, social status is only relative. Social status is only zero-sum.
The dominant mindset in a zero-sum system is to generate a monopoly of a necessity, then use that monopoly in one zero-sum system to get things that are in another zero-sum system. To the extent that zero-sum things are fungible, one zero-sum thing can be traded for another. Money can be used to get mates, territory, social status, food, etc. But only when money is zero-sum (short term limit), when there is hyperinflation, money is not zero-sum and it doesn’t work.
This strategy only works when there are multiple systems that truly are zero-sum. If a system is not zero-sum, then supplies of it are not as limited and so it is of much less value in trading for things that are limited.
This is the mindset of those who are trying to acquire power in a top-down social hierarchy; to compel things to exist only in zero-sum systems where another zero-sum system (money) must be used to exchange for other things (health care, food, living space, internet access, education).
This is why the concept of “free” is so anathema to those who are trying to acquire power in a top-down social hierarchy. If people can get what they want/need for free, then zero-sum property/systems have no special value and in the limit have no value.
This relates to a recent blog, where I discuss my ideas of what causes xenophobia.
I see xenophobia as the feeling that someone is at the bottom of the social power hierarchy, below the cut-off where someone is sufficiently like you to be considered to be “human-enough” to treat well and with respect. Moving people down the hierarchy causes you to move up.
If a system is not zero-sum, then supplies of it are not limited and so it is of no value in trading for things that are limited.
This is not correct. That a situation is non-zero-sum does not mean that scarcity no longer exists. Nor does it mean that infinite quantities of something are available costlessly.
As an example, suppose we can each make a single pie (something we like) working alone, and can make three pies, split evenly, working together with the same time and effort. Deciding to cooperate to bake the pies is a non-zero-sum game, as joint cooperation give each “player” a half a pie they wouldn’t otherwise have with no loss to the other.
On the other hand, deciding how to split three pies that have already been baked is a zero-sum game.
In neither case do we have infinite pies.
It is also not the case that the existence of a non-scarce resource makes scarce resources valueless. In most places on Earth, air is not a scarce resource*. I can go outside right now and use as much as I want. However, air cannot be traded for health care, food, living space, Internet access, or education. It cannot be the case that “conservatives” (Who exactly do you mean? And what exactly are the arguments against “free” things that they make?) are threatened by non-scarce resources.
Regarding the anathema some people have for giving away things for free. There was a recent article by Terry Savage in the Chicago Sun Times on some children giving away free lemonade at a lemonade stand. She proceeded to lecture them that they couldn’t give away the lemonade for free, and then used that anecdote to explain all the problems of the nation on the idea that giving away things for free was ok. The mindset that she expressed is what I was thinking about when I wrote what I did.
The story was picked up and there are are a number of responses that show her logic to be somewhat flawed. If you google it you can find them.
Looked up the article. Granted that Savage doesn’t sound like she was as tactful as she should have been*, she is correct in that lemonade really does have an opportunity cost.
Indeed, I think it’s trivial to show that Savage’s actions were not a result of zero-sum bias. If she were just trying to maximize resources for herself on the basis that there’s a limited supply of stuff, she should just accept the lemonade. After all, she’d have both the lemonade and the money then. Yet, she argued for a position that would have made her worse off if she did perceive the situation as a zero-sum game.
Instead, as Savage writes in her reply to the criticism, she figured that the girls would be better off running the lemonade stand as a model business, as it would teach them lessons that would improve their future earning and society as a whole**. Given this belief, her action of trying to convince the girls to accept payment is the “positive-sum thinking” you seem to be talking about.
If you want to say that Savage’s actions were wrong for some other reason… you know what, I agree that she just should have accepted the lemonade. But this isn’t zero-sum thinking.
*Although contrary to some… creative… interpretations of the article I found Googling for it, Savage seems quite civil, if perhaps eccentric.
**I’m skeptical of the ability of a lemonade stand to have much of an effect one way or the other.
You don’t have infinite pies, but if you can only consume one pie, a pie and a half might as well be infinite. If everyone has a pie and a half and no one can consume more than one pie, then there is zero value attached to the extra half pie that everyone has. There is even negative value attached to it because the excess pie needs to be disposed of or it will attract vermin and become moldy.
If you can thwart the pie-making abilities of others, such that they can only make half a pie, then your pie and a half is worth more. Thwarting the positive sum efforts of others is part-and-parcel to success with a zero-sum mindset.
If you make infinite pies and give them away for free, then pie-making skills do become valueless.
This is classic monopoly activity. If you have a monopoly, you can extract a disproportionate share of the value added from that monopoly and use that monopoly power to expand into other areas by giving away products,, driving competitors out of business and then charging for what had been given away for free.
To use another example, suppose you have a monopoly in an operating system. You can use revenues from that monopoly to subsidize developing and giving away a web browser. Because of the barriers to entry for web browsers, no one can compete with you with a stand alone browser unless they have revenues from some other source. If no competitors develop a browser (from which they can derive no income), then you have another monopoly and can begin to charge a monopoly premium for your web browser.
If there are a multitude of browsers, some of which are given away, then there is no value associated with a proprietary browser and so there is no monopoly.
The browser market is approximately zero-sum (over the short term). There are a finite number of computers needing a browser, once that need is satisfied there is no additional need. A zero-sum mindset with a monopoly then causes obsolescence so more browsers are needed. A positive-sum mindset makes something new so now there is a browser and something that does something else, a wowser, then a flowser, a smowser, a growser and all manner of other -owsers.
This is the mindset of many conservatives, to compel things to exist only in a zero-sum system where another zero-sum system (money) must be used to exchange for other things (health care, food, living space, internet access, education).
This is why the concept of “free” is so anathema to conservatives. If people can get what they want/need for free, then zero-sum property/systems have no special value and in the limit have no value.
Please, let’s avoid polarizing this site, especially with vague negative comments about Those Hated Greenists like that. I don’t think we want any politcal affiliation to feel unwelcome here.
Maybe daedalus2u’s remarks are too sweeping: e.g. maybe “many conservatives” and “conservatives” should be replaced by “some conservatives.” I think it should be okay if he says “some conservatives”
I would like to think that members of the website are sufficiently rational so that when people say “some people in group X exhibit negative trait Y” it’s understood that this doesn’t carry the connotation “people in group X are in general wrong and bad” or “every member in group X exhibits negative trait Y.” Surely one can find examples of human biases in both of conservative positions and liberal positions—do you think it’s inappropriate to discuss them here?
I don’t see much of an implicit disclaimer in “This is why the concept of “free” is so anathema to conservatives.”—or at least, the vague generality seems to be there to make the criticism against conservatives stronger, not to make the writing smoother. Psychoanalyzing your opponents and making generalizations from one or two examples taken out of context is common and annoying in political advocacy, and I’ve seen it on all sides.
Random example found by googling “liberals think” restricted to blog posts in the last 24 hours:
Happiness is earned, not received. Liberals think it is the other way around.
[...]
Liberals try to make excuses for these people by saying “life happens to them”.
If daedalus2u thinks that there’s an implicit disclaimer in that blog post “of course this only applies to some liberals, not all”, but that the author skipped it to keep his writing terse, then I was wrong.
That was my first post on less wrong. I posted before understanding the ground rules and how karma worked, and how precise people like things to be. I will try to be more careful and will edit my comment.
I did mean only some conservatives and now realize that was not really the right term and did not really express what I was trying to convey. I was thinking about the free lemonade example. I was thinking much broader than money when I posted that, in particular I was thinking about social power, in a top-down social power hierarchy (which is always zero-sum), where money is only one of the fungible zero-sum exchange media.
I am not sure that zero-sum or positive-sum games translate very well to the hypothetical early human society. You need more analysis to be convincing. What does it mean to have more resources when food cannot be stored and any surplus must be shared with others in the hope that they will do the same in the future? What does ownership or control of resources mean where only what can be carried can be protected? How does game theory cope with gift giving rather than trade? How does game theory work within families? etc.
In a tribe of a fixed small size, food allocation would be mostly zero-sum.
Early humans could store meat by smoking or burying it. Also, food surplus wasn’t the normal state of affairs: mostly early humans would have been struggling.
But sure, there would also be cases where reciprocal altruism worked well, which is why humans have such a keen urge for signalling high moral values and loyalty.
I think that what is important is the relative importance of positive sum versus zero sum games in the ancestral environment versus today.
Zero sum bias is an extremely important issue. I think it is the dominant issue adversely affecting economic growth.
During evolutionary time there were many, many things that were all zero-sum. It is hard to think of any that were not. You have to remember that over evolutionary time, the average number of children that each person had was 2. The average woman had 2 children, the average man had 2 children. We know the average was 2 because if the number was different than 2, then over 1,000 generations humans would have expanded to levels we know did not happen, or humans would have gone extinct. (1.025^1,000 = 5e10).
Territory is zero-sum. That is, there is only so much territory and if one person has it, another person doesn’t.
The number of fertile mates per generation is fixed, and so is subject to zero-sum allocation.
Social status is also zero-sum. There are a fixed number of individuals. In the social hierarchy, you are either above someone or below them. If one person moves up, other people have to move down. There is no “absolute” social status, social status is only relative. Social status is only zero-sum.
The dominant mindset in a zero-sum system is to generate a monopoly of a necessity, then use that monopoly in one zero-sum system to get things that are in another zero-sum system. To the extent that zero-sum things are fungible, one zero-sum thing can be traded for another. Money can be used to get mates, territory, social status, food, etc. But only when money is zero-sum (short term limit), when there is hyperinflation, money is not zero-sum and it doesn’t work.
This strategy only works when there are multiple systems that truly are zero-sum. If a system is not zero-sum, then supplies of it are not as limited and so it is of much less value in trading for things that are limited.
This is the mindset of those who are trying to acquire power in a top-down social hierarchy; to compel things to exist only in zero-sum systems where another zero-sum system (money) must be used to exchange for other things (health care, food, living space, internet access, education).
This is why the concept of “free” is so anathema to those who are trying to acquire power in a top-down social hierarchy. If people can get what they want/need for free, then zero-sum property/systems have no special value and in the limit have no value.
This relates to a recent blog, where I discuss my ideas of what causes xenophobia.
http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2010/03/physiology-behind-xenophobia.html
I see xenophobia as the feeling that someone is at the bottom of the social power hierarchy, below the cut-off where someone is sufficiently like you to be considered to be “human-enough” to treat well and with respect. Moving people down the hierarchy causes you to move up.
This is not correct. That a situation is non-zero-sum does not mean that scarcity no longer exists. Nor does it mean that infinite quantities of something are available costlessly.
As an example, suppose we can each make a single pie (something we like) working alone, and can make three pies, split evenly, working together with the same time and effort. Deciding to cooperate to bake the pies is a non-zero-sum game, as joint cooperation give each “player” a half a pie they wouldn’t otherwise have with no loss to the other.
On the other hand, deciding how to split three pies that have already been baked is a zero-sum game.
In neither case do we have infinite pies.
It is also not the case that the existence of a non-scarce resource makes scarce resources valueless. In most places on Earth, air is not a scarce resource*. I can go outside right now and use as much as I want. However, air cannot be traded for health care, food, living space, Internet access, or education. It cannot be the case that “conservatives” (Who exactly do you mean? And what exactly are the arguments against “free” things that they make?) are threatened by non-scarce resources.
*There are exceptions, I know.
Regarding the anathema some people have for giving away things for free. There was a recent article by Terry Savage in the Chicago Sun Times on some children giving away free lemonade at a lemonade stand. She proceeded to lecture them that they couldn’t give away the lemonade for free, and then used that anecdote to explain all the problems of the nation on the idea that giving away things for free was ok. The mindset that she expressed is what I was thinking about when I wrote what I did.
The story was picked up and there are are a number of responses that show her logic to be somewhat flawed. If you google it you can find them.
Looked up the article. Granted that Savage doesn’t sound like she was as tactful as she should have been*, she is correct in that lemonade really does have an opportunity cost.
Indeed, I think it’s trivial to show that Savage’s actions were not a result of zero-sum bias. If she were just trying to maximize resources for herself on the basis that there’s a limited supply of stuff, she should just accept the lemonade. After all, she’d have both the lemonade and the money then. Yet, she argued for a position that would have made her worse off if she did perceive the situation as a zero-sum game.
Instead, as Savage writes in her reply to the criticism, she figured that the girls would be better off running the lemonade stand as a model business, as it would teach them lessons that would improve their future earning and society as a whole**. Given this belief, her action of trying to convince the girls to accept payment is the “positive-sum thinking” you seem to be talking about.
If you want to say that Savage’s actions were wrong for some other reason… you know what, I agree that she just should have accepted the lemonade. But this isn’t zero-sum thinking.
*Although contrary to some… creative… interpretations of the article I found Googling for it, Savage seems quite civil, if perhaps eccentric.
**I’m skeptical of the ability of a lemonade stand to have much of an effect one way or the other.
You don’t have infinite pies, but if you can only consume one pie, a pie and a half might as well be infinite. If everyone has a pie and a half and no one can consume more than one pie, then there is zero value attached to the extra half pie that everyone has. There is even negative value attached to it because the excess pie needs to be disposed of or it will attract vermin and become moldy.
If you can thwart the pie-making abilities of others, such that they can only make half a pie, then your pie and a half is worth more. Thwarting the positive sum efforts of others is part-and-parcel to success with a zero-sum mindset.
If you make infinite pies and give them away for free, then pie-making skills do become valueless.
This is classic monopoly activity. If you have a monopoly, you can extract a disproportionate share of the value added from that monopoly and use that monopoly power to expand into other areas by giving away products,, driving competitors out of business and then charging for what had been given away for free.
To use another example, suppose you have a monopoly in an operating system. You can use revenues from that monopoly to subsidize developing and giving away a web browser. Because of the barriers to entry for web browsers, no one can compete with you with a stand alone browser unless they have revenues from some other source. If no competitors develop a browser (from which they can derive no income), then you have another monopoly and can begin to charge a monopoly premium for your web browser.
If there are a multitude of browsers, some of which are given away, then there is no value associated with a proprietary browser and so there is no monopoly.
The browser market is approximately zero-sum (over the short term). There are a finite number of computers needing a browser, once that need is satisfied there is no additional need. A zero-sum mindset with a monopoly then causes obsolescence so more browsers are needed. A positive-sum mindset makes something new so now there is a browser and something that does something else, a wowser, then a flowser, a smowser, a growser and all manner of other -owsers.
I really want a smowser.
Please, let’s avoid polarizing this site, especially with vague negative comments about Those Hated Greenists like that. I don’t think we want any politcal affiliation to feel unwelcome here.
Maybe daedalus2u’s remarks are too sweeping: e.g. maybe “many conservatives” and “conservatives” should be replaced by “some conservatives.” I think it should be okay if he says “some conservatives”
I would like to think that members of the website are sufficiently rational so that when people say “some people in group X exhibit negative trait Y” it’s understood that this doesn’t carry the connotation “people in group X are in general wrong and bad” or “every member in group X exhibits negative trait Y.” Surely one can find examples of human biases in both of conservative positions and liberal positions—do you think it’s inappropriate to discuss them here?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/bk/the_trouble_with_good/
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html
I don’t see much of an implicit disclaimer in “This is why the concept of “free” is so anathema to conservatives.”—or at least, the vague generality seems to be there to make the criticism against conservatives stronger, not to make the writing smoother. Psychoanalyzing your opponents and making generalizations from one or two examples taken out of context is common and annoying in political advocacy, and I’ve seen it on all sides.
Random example found by googling “liberals think” restricted to blog posts in the last 24 hours:
http://theatleeappeal.com/2010/07/daily-rant-obamas-domestic-war-enemies-the-rich/″
If daedalus2u thinks that there’s an implicit disclaimer in that blog post “of course this only applies to some liberals, not all”, but that the author skipped it to keep his writing terse, then I was wrong.
Fair point, I retract my endorsement of this post unless daedalus2u qualifies his/her statement about conservatives.
That was my first post on less wrong. I posted before understanding the ground rules and how karma worked, and how precise people like things to be. I will try to be more careful and will edit my comment.
I did mean only some conservatives and now realize that was not really the right term and did not really express what I was trying to convey. I was thinking about the free lemonade example. I was thinking much broader than money when I posted that, in particular I was thinking about social power, in a top-down social power hierarchy (which is always zero-sum), where money is only one of the fungible zero-sum exchange media.
Edited: I agree with what daedalus2u says before he/she makes reference to conservatives, agree with Emile’s comment.