Well, the relevant fact about zero-sum games is that their sum is constant
I’m not sure that the sum of “wealth” is constant, in a negative sum game. The willful destruction of someone else’s wealth/resources does not result in a constant sum...that wealth is destroyed. So the point is, there are zero-sum games, and non-zero-sum-games,and the question is where does the bias lie, at any given time?
You seem to have misunderstood some terms here. A general negative-sum game does not have a constant sum, no. But the constancy here is not constancy of sum between before game and after game; if that holds, you have a zero-sum game. The constancy here is over all options the players can take. If that holds, you can subtract out that constant to obtain a zero-sum game with equivalent strategy. A person who assumes all of a certain class of games sum to “1”, whatever that means, will have the same bias in his strategy as one who assumes that all such games sum to 0. The only difference is that he’d want to play more often.
I guess I need your analysis in a real world example, because I think we are talking too much about the “game” model.
If I kill your cattle, or I salt your earth, what is the sum? What is the constant? What is the bias?
My point is: the sum is negative, there is no constant, and the bias is towards “gratification”. I don’t think killing my competitors cattle comes from an inherent evolutionary-economic analysis...I think it comes from “doing this releases endorphines in my brain in the short term, I see his wealth destroyed and that seems good”. The bias is simply “relative success”...I win by gaining more, by losing less, or by making him lose more than me. It’s all very short term and emotional.
And going for relative sense makes sense when? In a zero-sum (or if you like, constant-sum) game. Though this may be getting away from the original statement?
What happens out there in the hurly-burly is not a “zero-sum” or “constant-sum” game. Specifically: it’s not a “game” at all.
Those games are distillations and models used for testing behavior. This tells us certain things about how people react and interact, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Going for relative makes sense when you can’t take, you can’t (necessarily) earn, you can’t (in the short term) increase/generate. But you CAN win by destroying. You destroy your opponents resource, thereby “increasing” your wealth in a relative sense.
It’s why we bombed weapons plants during WW2, no? And to an extent, it’s why they salted the earth....
I’m not sure that the sum of “wealth” is constant, in a negative sum game. The willful destruction of someone else’s wealth/resources does not result in a constant sum...that wealth is destroyed.
So the point is, there are zero-sum games, and non-zero-sum-games,and the question is where does the bias lie, at any given time?
You seem to have misunderstood some terms here. A general negative-sum game does not have a constant sum, no. But the constancy here is not constancy of sum between before game and after game; if that holds, you have a zero-sum game. The constancy here is over all options the players can take. If that holds, you can subtract out that constant to obtain a zero-sum game with equivalent strategy. A person who assumes all of a certain class of games sum to “1”, whatever that means, will have the same bias in his strategy as one who assumes that all such games sum to 0. The only difference is that he’d want to play more often.
I guess I need your analysis in a real world example, because I think we are talking too much about the “game” model. If I kill your cattle, or I salt your earth, what is the sum? What is the constant? What is the bias? My point is: the sum is negative, there is no constant, and the bias is towards “gratification”.
I don’t think killing my competitors cattle comes from an inherent evolutionary-economic analysis...I think it comes from “doing this releases endorphines in my brain in the short term, I see his wealth destroyed and that seems good”.
The bias is simply “relative success”...I win by gaining more, by losing less, or by making him lose more than me. It’s all very short term and emotional.
And going for relative sense makes sense when? In a zero-sum (or if you like, constant-sum) game. Though this may be getting away from the original statement?
What happens out there in the hurly-burly is not a “zero-sum” or “constant-sum” game. Specifically: it’s not a “game” at all. Those games are distillations and models used for testing behavior. This tells us certain things about how people react and interact, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.
Going for relative makes sense when you can’t take, you can’t (necessarily) earn, you can’t (in the short term) increase/generate. But you CAN win by destroying. You destroy your opponents resource, thereby “increasing” your wealth in a relative sense. It’s why we bombed weapons plants during WW2, no? And to an extent, it’s why they salted the earth....