Non-Zero-Sum Game and Zero-sum game

A zero-sum game

A zero-sum game is a psychological notion that presupposes that all participants or groups of players will experience an equal level of competition. The “sum of all gains by participants is equal to the sum of losses for all possible outcomes of that game,” according to the concept of a “zero-sum game.” In order to better comprehend the concept of “zero-sum game,” researchers have used a variety of examples. In their investigation of “competitive and collaborative approaches,” Cerny and Mannova (2011) used the game of checkers to illustrate the concept of “zero-sum game.” In the game of checkers, for instance, there is always one winner and one loser in which case the winner gets an addition of one point, and the loser goes down by one point. On the contrary, “non-zero-sum game” represents a situation in which an issue does not have a universally accepted outcome or solution. “Non-zero-sum games” are non-competitive in nature, meaning that a win for one player might not necessarily mean a loss for another player. One perfect example that has been used to demonstrate a “non-zero-sum game” include the “prisoners’ dilemma” (Cerny & Mannova, 2011). This type of game explains the non-competitive nature of two prisoners who decided to act in their self-interests with the aims of achieving the best possible results.

Theories of “zero-sum game” and “non-zero-sum game”

The theories of “zero-sum game” and “non-zero-sum game” have been vastly used by judges to determine whether or not an issue presented in the court has an optimal solution. Although the psychological concepts behind these two terms differ significantly across disciplines, it is important to understand that both the “zero-sum game” and “non-zero-sum game” hardly represent the conflicts faced by individuals in real life (Cerny & Mannova, 2011). In protection of credibility hypothesis, the application of the two concepts does not mean that the issues presented by two or more opposing forces have straightforward results and solutions as suggested by most psychologists.

Carol Gilligan’s theory of moral development

In “Carol Gilligan’s theory of moral development,” we are introduced to gender differences in “moral reasoning,” “perception of violence,” “resolution of sexual challenges,” and “abortion decisions.” Gilligan’s theory borrows from Kohlberg’s principle of a “feminist perception of moral development” with a focus on different moral judgment ratings. The variations in judgment and moral ratings are caused by gender bias and desire to pursue different voices. While men work to improve their social relationships and moral rights by organizing them in a hierarchical order, women tend to focus more on “interpersonal connectedness,” “care,” “sensitivity,” and “responsibility” to others. From Muuss’ investigation of “Carol Gilligan’s theory” (1988), it appears that females are more sensitive to gender issues than men and always prefer being considered equal to men. For women, “feminism,” gender equality,“ and ’fairness,” as well as other social justices, are important factors that must be considered in order to establish social progress. With this mindset, we can conclude that women would prefer the “zero-sum game” while men would prefer the “non-zero-sum game.” It appears that only very few individuals have come to the realization that the challenges of gender inequality cut across and affect both males and females. Moreover, no particular researcher embraces gender equality as a force that can be used to achieve the goals of both men and women but rather a movement that only benefits the most inferior gender (females).

References

Cerny, T., & Mannova, B. (2011). Competitive and collaborative approach towards a more effective education in computer science. Contemporary educational technology, 2(2), 163-173.

Muuss, R. E. (1988). Carol Gilligan’s theory of sex differences in the development of moral reasoning during adolescence. Adolescence, 23(89), 229.