Abstract
We investigate the origins and implications of zero-sum thinking – the belief that gains for one individual or group tend to come at the cost of others. Using a new survey of a representative sample of 20,400 US residents, we measure zero-sum thinking, political preferences, policy views, and a rich array of ancestral information spanning four generations. We find that a more zero-sum mindset is strongly associated with more support for government redistribution, raceand gender-based affirmative action, and more restrictive immigration policies. Furthermore, zero-sum thinking can be traced back to the experiences of both the individual and their ancestors, encompassing factors such as the degree of intergenerational upward mobility they experienced, whether they immigrated to the United States or lived in a location with more immigrants, and whether they were enslaved or lived in a location with more enslavement.
Introduction
In this paper, we explore whether a hypothesis first proposed by anthropologist George Foster (1965, 1967) can help shed light on the contemporary social, political, and cultural dynamics of the United States. Foster hypothesized that many societies harbor a “zero-sum” perception of the world, or as he described it, an “image of limited good.” This worldview implies that the gains of some are invariably the losses of others, based on the underlying assumption that societal output is limited and that efforts and exchanges, rather than creating value, merely reallocate it.
Although Foster developed this hypothesis to study economic beliefs and social relations in rural Mexico, he offered many examples from other parts of the world, and recent research raises the possibility that his insights might be very general (Carvalho et al., 2022). Zero-sum thinking appears to have been prevalent throughout history, ranging from European Mercantilism in the Early Modern period to modern-day trade and immigration policies (Thurow, 1980, Rubin, 2003).
Conclusion
The first part of the paper documents a strong and robust relationship between zero-sum thinking and views about politics and policy. Individuals who view the world in more zero-sum terms tend to believe there is an important role for policies that redistribute income from the rich to the poor and that help disadvantaged groups (e.g., affirmative action for women and Black Americans). They also support more restrictive immigration policies. Zero-sum thinking is not mainly a partisan issue but can help explain otherwise puzzling within-party variation in policy views.
We also examined the historical and ancestral roots of zero-sum thinking. We find that three key factors in the history of the United States are important determinants of zero-sum thinking: economic intergenerational mobility, immigration, and enslavement. These three factors shape zero-sum thinking through the direct experience of an individual and their ancestors (e.g., whether they were immigrants or enslaved), and more indirectly (e.g., whether they lived in counties with a high share of immigrants or enslaved peopel).
Our findings highlight the role played by differences in perceptions about the basic nature of human interactions. They suggest that one’s view on a wide range of social, political, and economic issues may be strongly influenced by the extent to which one perceives the gains in society as coming at the expense of others – i.e., zero-sum thinking. These results raise a host of questions that could guide future research.
Notably, given the fundamental nature of zero-sum thinking, could it also explain other economic, political, or social phenomena associated with it? Populism, conspiracy theories, or nativism all have at their roots in the belief that one group gains at the expense of others – whether it be a global elite, the “deep state,” or those from other countries. Given the current crises facing the world, there is also the natural question of how zero-sum thinking relates to views about climate change and global inequality.
Our analysis has shown that differences in zero-sum thinking are connected to historical forces in systematic ways. Individuals are more zero-sum today if they have ancestors who lived in an environment, or if they directly experienced, events that were more zero-sum. Understanding whether shorter-run experiences also affect zero-sum thinking is an interesting question for future research.
- Full paper here
Max came and changed my life. I stopped dwelling on my past Indian heritage, my childhood, my parents et al plus stopped dreaming about future utopia. I knew that the so-called future utopia was a life without Max.
He nudged me daily to live in the present and taught me to adapt myself to "now" without any preconceived notions and baggage from the past.
I am eternally grateful for that gift.
I miss Max everyday but I didn’t die nor die everyday slowly without him.
Instead, I try to be better and more open minded than the person who lived 13 plus years with Max.
I have a responsibility as an animal in its prime to do even little to make this world little better than the one I inherited.
This paper is so beautiful (yes, if you dig deeper you will find faults but that's not the point).
It captures the core problem - we all carry baggage from our parents and even worse, our ancestors who we even never met!
We need to shed it. Shed the baggage from past. Shed Nostalgia.
This has nothing to do with not being "loyal" to them but it means growing up as a better human being.
Otherwise, life will be horrible not only for you but it has immense societal consequences (that's the point of this paper).
What to shed? Rudimentary rule - if something takes up your present time, adds no value to become a better human being, worse brings pain and suffering to oneself and/or living beings; then shed it.
Learn the from the past and we need to grow up.
No comments:
Post a Comment