re: Can someone adequately explain “Zero Sum Game Theory”? (Updated)

quote:

---

I really appreciate the effort to explain it simply, but again, wouldn’t the guy who won the coin flip be +1/2?

---

It's called a sum, dimwit. You have to add both outcomes together.

quote:

---

Player 1 might “admit” that it was a “zero sum game”, but he wouldn’t really care, right?

---

As for this question, it depends on the stakes, the relationship between the players, and the alternate options available.


In your M&M example, sure, the stakes are sufficiently small and there is likely no preferable way to split the good that this zero sum game is the best way to go and one that player 1 is perfectly happy with.


But more broadly thinking, about economics in particular, there tend to be far better options available than zero sum game dynamics. In fact the very nature of something like trade is that it is not a zero sum game; but rather a mutually beneficial one.

Further, even if player 1 is made materially better off, there are other things that influence player 1’s well being than just their consumption. For example, most people don’t enjoy seeing their neighbors suffer; it’s why charities exist. And most people hold aspects of fairness in high regard; it’s why people tend not to steal things even in instances where they are certain they can get away with it.


Which is all to say, thinking about player 1’s reaction to winning a zero sum game as unequivocally positive is probably too strong of a conclusion. Especially if player 1 feels affinity for player 2 and/or there are alternative options available where the game does not need to be zero sum in the first place.