![zero over non zero limits zero over non zero limits](https://media.cheggcdn.com/media%2F3c3%2F3c3495a9-6ff9-433a-a24a-6e4295104a3e%2Fphp3W2jTx.png)
Similarly, we can be moved by self-interest to implement more tolerant behavior and policies it is less obvious that an appeal to self-interest can get us to have a more tolerant attitudes and beliefs. If I offer you a million dollars to utter the sentence “1+1=3″ I’m sure you’ll comply but my money is likely to remain safely mine if I ask you to believe that 1+1=3. (For the record, my attitude towards the relations between the Western and Muslim worlds is that of a typical liberal, globalized, tolerant, Obama-voter-so much so that even using phrases like “the West” and “the Muslim world” makes me uneasy.) There is, however, something unsettling about attempting to justify these attitudes purely by an appeal to self-interest.įirst of all, there are psychological limitations to what can be achieved by an appeal to self-interest. He advocates tolerance towards the Muslim world on the grounds that tolerance begets understanding, and through understanding we can better prevent the ranks of terrorists from swelling, which will be “in the interests of westerners.” Now, let me emphasize first that I’m all for keeping the ranks of terrorists from swelling, and I’m all for tolerance and understanding of other cultures, even hostile ones. And yet it seems to be Wright’s attitude.
![zero over non zero limits zero over non zero limits](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VY4xW.png)
The chilling conclusion arises only if one is assessing game strategies purely in terms of self-gain-which is not an attitude I recommend. If that seems like a chilling conclusion, let me first stress that I am speaking wholly in the abstract I am certainly not recommending any actual practice or policy. Should one party get the opportunity to crush the other and take the whole cake, it is entirely logically possible that this is what that party should do. Thus, even if it is granted for the sake of argument that the western world and the Muslim world are presently engaged in a grand non-zero-sum game, it doesn’t automatically follow that it is in the best interests of either party to continue in this manner. All I’m saying is that, in terms of self-gain, when an individual has the option of choosing to play either a non-zero-sum game or a zero-sum game with someone, sometimes the former will be the optimal choice and sometimes the latter will be it depends on many variables in the environment of interaction.įor all the importance that non-zero-sum games have had in the process of evolution and the rise of civilization, it is vital that we don’t apotheosize or sentimentalize the relation to the extent that we think “non-zero-sum = good” and “zero-sum = bad.” Exploiting the heck out of the other guy has also played a huge role in the process of evolution and the rise of civilization. Of course, that would be a cruel and immoral way to behave, and I’m not seriously recommending such practices. From a purely material selfish point of view, you really might be better off bopping the stranger on the head and stealing all he owns (assuming he is no threat, assuming you can escape punishment, etc.). The second point to draw attention to is that although it is easy to get transfixed by the idea that non-zero-sumness is a wonderful thing, we should not forget that it is not always superior to zero-sumness. It may be granted that the Western world and the Muslim world are well-positioned to engage in a fruitful non-zero-sum game it doesn’t follow that they are so engaged. A phrase that Wright likes to use-”being in a non-zero-sum relation”-fudges this distinction it is ambiguous between (A) two parties being in a position to exchange costs and benefits in a mutually beneficial manner, and (B) two parties actually engaged in doing so. First, there is a huge difference between being in a position to potentially play a non-zero-sum game with someone and actually playing such a game. Or you could walk past each other with a polite nod and play no game at all.įrom this little scenario there are a couple of simple but important lessons to draw.
![zero over non zero limits zero over non zero limits](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344896206/figure/fig3/AS:951120532869136@1603776214395/IMPS-optimization-results-when-the-limit-of-a-maximum-Cdocumentclass12ptminimal.jpg)
![zero over non zero limits zero over non zero limits](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qjBQ0.jpg)
Or he might choose to try that out on you. If you were so inclined, you could instead choose to play a zero-sum game with him: bopping him on the head, stealing everything he has, and leaving him for dead. However, while you approach each other, you and the stranger are not playing any game at all-the game is mere potential. Thus, you are in a position to help each other out, to swap some water for some food, to play a non-zero-sum game. He is running low on water, but you have plenty. You are running low on food, but he has plenty. Suppose you are walking along a deserted path in the mountains and meet a stranger traveling in the opposite direction.