Influence of modelling and practicing Zero Sum vs Non-Zero Sum Games

From my research in game theory

Meeting people who practice it in their work, in their life actively, or study it thoroughly

There is a staggering skew, I have come to notice significantly, in how their personal daily decision making seems to get influenced, almost as if

those working, modelling and applying zero-sum games only keep developing a “selfish” side applying it in places where nurturing would rather result in growth together, a single agent wins contribute v little but more than no-win value.

Whereas it is noticeable that those who practice and understand the modelling and working of non-zero sum games as well generally allow a suboptimal “loss-appearing” move in order to achieve a larger “goal” that comes from collective growth instead of purely value from individual win.

There is a staggering skew, I have come to notice significantly, in how their personal daily decision making seems to get influenced, those who model zero-sum games actively, almost as if

people forget a larger whole when focused on a specific part, silently changing states of their own internal models from non-zero to zero-sum identifying games.

And this brings me to keep self closer to what I truly want to achieve, and remind self repeatedly, to have a layer a internal recognition actively observing my decisions of categorising situations in life — is it worthy to label the overall game as zero-sum at all? I ask myself if are we trying to model nominal variables (those that shall never be heirarchical, in time or quantitatively, not even partly) into a quantitative value comparison system of zero-sum games? How can you sum to 0 when all states are nominal, when it’s about existence (Is/Not) and binary logic (Truth/False) and therefore quantitative measures themselves don’t hold significance. Almost as if any quantitative dimension itself (including time dimension) appeared “after” the qualitative whole, or rather inside of it completely, almost as if time resides inside qualitative whole of existence, and binary logic.

More on it later…

+On equivalence and causality later… why causality is a hard problem to prove … because causality means nothing, in a cause, one should appear prior to the other that has been caused, however, equivalence holds true above time regardless and does not “change”, rather encompasses it. And that is why equivalence makes clauses synonymous. Not heirarchical, or causative. They are complete in themselves, 2 equivalent clauses. And time seems to be building itself as a product of putting these equivalent clauses near each other.

Priyal Bhagwanani