Is there a term / better way of phrasing the general case where an intervention helps certain individuals do better at zero-sum games but doesn’t provide any external value?
post by freedomandutility · 2021-12-20T17:35:08.099Z · LW · GW · 3 commentsThis is a question post.
Contents
Answers 14 jessicata 6 greylag 2 toonalfrink None 3 comments
Eg - Some people think that education / the cosmetics industry benefit some individuals but hurt other individuals at the same time because job markets / dating markets involve zero-sum games, so education / the cosmetic industry don’t provide any benefit to society overall. In other words, they change who succeeds but don’t cause more success.
I’d also like to find a term / nicer way of phrasing how individuals involved are incentivised to invest more resources to these things as others do the same, leading to a vicious cycle and increasing amounts of resources being dedicated to something that does not benefit society.
Answers
↑ comment by freedomandutility · 2021-12-20T23:13:15.713Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That is perfect, exactly what I was looking for, thank you!
“Pareto efficiency“ - Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is an economic state where resources cannot be reallocated to make one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off (from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pareto-efficiency.asp)
and “arms race”, if that counts as a nicer way, or some allusion to the Red Queen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_race)
↑ comment by freedomandutility · 2021-12-20T23:15:19.561Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
These are also perfect, thank you!
3 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Dagon · 2021-12-20T22:21:25.398Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think the two answers so far, Positional Goods and Arms Race, are pretty solid. But I'd like to challenge the underlying statement - there are no truly fixed-sum games in the real world. Utility is highly-dimensional and highly variable across time and individuals, and every legible interaction is actually a sub-game in a much more complex set of known and unknown future decisions.
Replies from: freedomandutility↑ comment by freedomandutility · 2021-12-20T23:12:24.783Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think I agree with you, but I also think it's very useful to think of games as fixed-sum when making decisions relating to them.
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2021-12-21T17:14:50.198Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's very often worth noticing these features in interpersonal, small-scale decisions. Whether you frame it as "look for the win-win", "avoid zero-sum sub-games", or "prefer kindness over winning", it's good advice.
I don't know many cases where it's useful on the general topics you give as examples (industries, education as a whole, dating).
I should probably admit that I actually do care about myself and those close to me more than strangers, and I acknowledge that there is some amount of zero-sum outcomes in our current perceptions of individual identity. The overall game of individual existence is a mix of many games, and winning some of the zero-sum components lets me get higher sums on other components.