英文阅读：Zero sum game
Reader question:In this sentence – Globalization is not a zero sum game but a great
opportunity for all – what does "zero sum game" mean?
My comments:
Sum means total, as in sum total. Zero-sum means it all adds up to
naught.
A zero-sum game is one in which gains and losses cancel each other out,
i.e. someone winning something comes at the expense of somebody else's losing.
To make your winning possible, somebody has to lose that something you're
winning.
Let's say you're playing Chinese chess and you gain ground by eating, as it
were, one of your opponent's pawns. You gain (an advantage of) a pawn, he loses
one. He eats one of your horses – he gains a horse (in advantage), you lose a
horse. You win a game, he loses a game. You can't win a game without him losing
one. You are good. Better than your opponent is, that is, and you win ten games
in a row. He loses ten in a row (to make your winning possible).
You say, hey, that's great, I like this game. I win all the time. I like
winning all the time.
Well, if that's what you like, you're on your way to suffer because one,
you're not going to win all games in life all the time; two, if you win all the
time it's no competition – where's fun of competition when there's no
competition?
So, what you do is you shift attention from winning (or losing) to simply
playing the game – and not get attached to outcome. Only then are you able to
enjoy the fact that you're getting better from the practice – becoming a better
player with each game played, win or lose – and keep getting closer to reaching
your full potential (which in turn keeps growing of course just to stay out of
your reach).
And if your opponent did the same, both of you would escape your karma –
the sorry fate of suffering the joy of winning and the pain of losing.
Esoteric? Well, definitely we're drifting – let's get back to, er,
globalization.
When globalization is described as a zero-sum game, it means that gains by
some countries are cancelled out by losses by other countries. For example, if
Nike, the sports gear maker, shifts one of its shoe shops from, say, Mexico to
Indonesia, the latter gains an extra business. But gains made by Indonesians are
offset by the loss of the same business in Mexico. That's why globalization
becomes a zero-sum game for, say, countries which have little more than cheap
labor to offer (and to be exploited).
But if, say, China exports wheat, supposing we have an excess of it (which
we don't, of course – it sometimes seems we, too, only have an excess of cheap
labor) to Ecuador and gets bananas back, supposing Ecuador has an excess of
bananas, then it becomes what politicians call a win-win situation.
If you listen to politicians these days, you hear they are turning every
piece of deal into a win-win situation for all parties involved – all winners
and no losers. You hope they know what they are talking about, of course.
Anyways, here are more media examples on "zero-sum game":
1. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said,"
Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy
and security are a zero-sum game.'"
A zero-sum game is one in which gains by one side come at the expense of
the other. In other words – McConnell's aide believes greater security can only
come at privacy's expense.
- US drafting plan to allow government access to any email or Web search,
rawstory.com, January 14, 2008.
2. "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum
game.'" Thus spake security consultant Ed Giorgio in a widely-quoted New Yorker
article on the US intelligence community's plans to vacuum up and sift through
everything that flies across the wires. But Giorgio is wrong—catastrophically
wrong. The story of Fidencio Estrada, a drug runner who bribed Florida Customs
agent Rafael Pacheco to (among other things) access multiple federal law
enforcement databases on his behalf, suggests that when it comes to the
government collecting data on innocent civilians for law enforcement purposes,
privacy and security are essentially the same thing.
- Analysis: Metcalfe's Law + Real ID = more crime, less safety,
arstechnica.com, January 19, 2008.
3. Bush's woefully misguided invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003,
carried out under false pretences, has not only drained the United States
treasury, but reduced Washington's standing in the Middle East in a way not yet
fully grasped by most commentators. Whereas Washington once played off Tehran
against Baghdad, while involved in a superpower zero-sum game with the Soviet
Union, the Bush administration is now engaged in a zero-sum game, as a virtual
equal, with Iran. That is, America's loss has become Iran's automatic gain, and
vice-versa.
- Bush in a zero-sum Iranian game of his own making, arabamericannews.com,
December 9, 2007.
4. Zero-sum game
When the gains made by winners in an economic transaction equal the losses
suffered by the losers. It is identified as a special case in GAME THEORY. Most
economic transactions are in some sense positive-sum games. But in popular
discussion of economic issues, there are often examples of a mistaken zero-sum
mentality, such as "PROFIT comes at the expense of WAGES", "higher PRODUCTIVITY
means fewer jobs", and "IMPORTS mean fewer jobs here".
- economist.com
页:
[1]