THE CONCEPT OF THE ZERO SUM GAME
IF SOMEONE LOSES, THE OTHER PERSON CAUSED IT
draft, but the whole idea is here...
The concept of the “zero sum” game is that in order to get more I have to take from someone else since nothing (zero) can (and/or will) be created.
Notice that this game is played in many poor countries, where there are wars and armed conflicts fighting over territory and scarce assets. And the result, besides the direct human tragedies, is that there is, in fact, less left over afterwards - in a kind of lose-lose, where both sides lose.
I win, you lose (win-lose) simply means I see the world as a “zero sum” game, where in order to get more I have to take from someone else since nothing (zero) can be created.
I win, you win (win-win) means that we give it our best to have everybody come out as far ahead as possible and that we can end up actually creating more than what was originally available in total (a “plus sum” game).
It is proven that opposition simply cancels out the energy put forth in the opposite directions, whereas cooperation adds the energies together and much more is accomplished. This is hard to see from the “child’s” viewpoint of powerlessness and me-me neediness - and, in society and politics, many people are encouraging others to have that viewpoint - much to their detriment in the long run.
Leaders who repeatedly blame the other side for not compromising normally do not make as much progress since they have a "reason why not", which is the obstinacy of the other side. And then they enroll their followers, who do not know better or understand how things work, into believing the same. This ends up showing up in a widely divided country, which "of course" is "the fault of the other side." Lyndon Johnson, regardless of your political beliefs, was a man who was a master of the win-win game - just look at the amount of the progress he made. But people will say "it is different this time" (which is what they always say, even before tech stocks crashed from "justified" huge prices) - but it isn't - that's just a simplified pile of nonsense, often a justifier only.
Explanatory:
Discussed in Wikipedia, perhaps too deeply for our purposes:
Examples using the terminology:
Google for more items...
