Positive Sum Mindset vs Zero Sum Mindset
/Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.
Reading time: 9 mins
One sentence summary: Having a Positive Sum Mindset is key to being able to view events as ‘wins’. Being able to see events as wins is key to believing in yourself, levelling up your ability and helping improve the world.
Definitions
Positive Sum Game = is win / win
Zero Sum Game = is win / loss
Positive Sum Mindset = looking for how to view a situation in a positive sum light, ie win/win.
Zero Sum Mindset = assuming the world is zero sum, ie win/loss
Win = levelled up = will be better in the future than today = don’t give up
Loss = didn’t learn / level up = future doesn’t look good = high risk of giving up
Examples
Chess
Zero Sum Mindset = what matters is if I win or lose the game
Positive Sum Mindset = what matters is if I levelled up eg being able to use more strategies
Work meeting
Zero Sum Mindset = what matters is the order of who added the most value in the meeting
Zero Sum Mindset = what matters is if my idea in its initial form was accepted otherwise I didn’t add any value in the meeting
Positive Sum Mindset = what matter is if I added value and if on average I’m adding more value over time
Secondary education
Zero Sum Mindset = how do I rank vs other students in my class
Positive Sum Mindset = am I growing vs myself yesterday
Meta structure
It doesn’t matter if you win or lose (Zero Sum Mindset)...
… what matter is if you level up (Positive Sum Mindset)
I think in most circumstances you can have a positive sum mindset and that this can allow a ‘loss’ to be turned into a ‘win’.
Jingle: to have a positive life, have a positive (sum) mindset.
Jingle 2: You don’t need to “think positive” if you have a positive-sum mindset because everything is positive!
++++++++
Details
You can have a Positive Sum Mindset (approach) to a Zero Sum Game - Chess
Chess has a winner and a loser (ok you can draw but let’s leave that out for now)... but even if you ‘lose’ the game you can still have ‘won’ (levelled up).
Winning the battle ≠ Winning the war
Let’s say two people play 100 games of Chess and Player 1 wins 67% of the time and Player 2 wins 33% of the time. Does this make Player 2 bad at Chess?
Let’s also assume that in Chess you start at Level 1 and can level up indefinitely.
And that, on average, the percentage win rate of a player is determined by the difference in the levels of the players.
Zero level difference = 50:50 win:loss (eg both players are at Level 1)
One level difference = 67:33 (eg one player is at Level 2 and one at Level 1)
Two level difference = 75:25 (eg one player is at Level 5 and one at Level 3)
Three level difference = 80:20 (eg one player is at Level 7 and one at Level 4)
Four level difference = 90:10 (eg one player is at Level 5 and one at Level 1)
In our example let’s say the following:
Player 1 started on Level 2 and Player 2 started on Level 1. Ie one level difference and on average 67:33 win:loss rate.
Both players levelled up over the 100 games, with Player 1 finishing on Level 10 and Player 2 finishing on Level 9.
However, the average level difference between Player 1 and Player 2 across the 100 games remained at ‘one level difference’ meaning Player 1 wins 67% of the time.
In this example both players are much better than they were at the beginning despite the win:loss ratio being static.
Positive Sum Mindset vs Zero Sum Mindset outcomes for Player 2
Positive Sum Mindset = even though I ‘only’ won 33% of the time, what really matters is that I’ve gone from L1 => L9. Playing with Player 1 is good for me.
Zero Sum Mindset = I’m not improving my win percentage, I’m bad at Chess, Player 1 will always be better than me.
What is one key way to level up?
Have a Growth plan = 1. If you don’t succeed try again + 2. With a new / updated strategy
One key way to level up is through adding strategies for Chess (or anything). See Improved ‘intelligence’ = strategy added
As an example here are a bunch of strategies for Chess. Imagine playing chess with all these strategies vs someone who has zero strategies… it’s like you are a ‘genius’.
IMO Master (genius) = 1. Has lots of strategies * 2. Can use the strategies well
Novice = 1. Doesn’t have many / any strategies * 2. Can’t use strategies well
Meta comment:
I think you can apply this approach of trying to have a ‘Positive Sum Mindset’ to many places. Dont’ worry about winning or losing, worry about if you have levelled up.
The give up point (negative sum override point)... the point is you should never give up
Positive sentiment override = normally 75% = if you work for 4 hours, and 3 hours are good but 1 bad, you don’t mind about the 1 bad hour (you have positive sentiment override for it) because of the 3 good hours.
The often talked about ‘give up point’ = if you win less than 25% of the time often people stop trying (ie won’t play the next game).
I’ve written about this here, but trying without a ‘growth plan’ is ‘hoping to get better’. This isn’t ideal!
You might say that to have people continue trying, give them a ‘win’, ie lose a game of chess to them on purpose. But winning without knowing why (no Growth Plan) can be very counterproductive.
Positive Sum Mindset = levelling up rate is what matters
Zero Sum Mindset = win rate is what matters
I’ve found it’s often counterproductive to give people ‘false’ wins, it’s often very productive to give them strategies for how to level up. Then explain whether they won or not that it’s about if they levelled up. IE foster a ‘Positive Sum Mindset’.
With a ‘Positive Sum Mindset’ win rate isn’t relevant. IE you might win 0% of 10 games of chess but level up hard therefore want to play again! AKA the give up point doesn’t exist.
With a ‘Zero Sum Mindset’, giving up is about win rate AKA the give up point is typically about 25% or lower win rate.
You see this a lot with elite sports people, when they were younger they wanted to play with the best people who were older than them (ie the max difference in levels between them). Playing with someone who was eg four levels above them might have meant they won 10% of the time but that they levelled up way harder than if they only played with people at a similar level to them.
Note, If you can play practice games with ‘big league people’ that might be great to level you up… but the big league people might not want you on the field for actual games until you have levelled up enough to make it somewhat competitive!
Work example - Positive Sum Mindset vs Zero Sum Mindset
Let’s say you are in a meeting with 4 people at work.
Zero Sum Mindset = what matters is who added the most value and ranking the order value added from 1st to last = you are comparing yourself to the group
Positive Sum Mindset = what matters is if you added any value and that if on average the amount of value you add is going up over time = you are comparing yourself to you yesterday.
How you might help encourage a ‘Positive Sum Mindset’ in others:
L1: After a meeting talk to someone about the value they added
L2: After a meeting talk to someone about the value they added + Some of the metacognition around where the value came from
Input * Strategy = Output
L3: After a meeting talk to someone if they missed a point try to explain why you believe this is the case + How they might want to approach that situation with a different strategy in the future.
Because the world has broken free from being resource constrained, everyone can experience material success
Previously the world was zero sum and resource constrained, there was a fixed number of berries and beasts on the land and if someone else was able to capture more food, there was less food for you
We are now resource unconstrained, nature works for us (agriculture): by collaborating we’ve gone from 90% of humans being subsistence farms to ~1.5% of humans feeding all of humanity.
As discussed above, other people growing does not preclude you from also growing
Because we live in an unconstrained world, this also means that others material success(usually through growing) does not mean you can’t also experience material success (usually through growing)
There is no lack of opportunity as long as you can work to earn it!
Therefore, there is no reason not to have a positive sum mindset! It allows you to grow and get more in the long run
Emergence - many of each level combine to form the level above it, which is more than the sum of its parts.
If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go with others. No journey is long with good company.
If you want to make a big difference to the world, on average it’s much easier with many people vs few.
IMO what matters is the quantum of improvement of the group, not the ranking of who added the most value.
In short, one key to building a large group of people that operate where ‘the whole is more than the sum of its parts’ is through have a strong ‘Positive Sum Mindset’ culture (vs ‘Zero Sum Mindset’).
If you’re all adding value to the same project, each person’s value contribution will compound on each other
Not only can everyone grow and succeed (i.e. there aren’t any limits), but if you grow together, you’ll succeed more than if you were to just grow by yourself
Education example - Year 7 Maths
I believe the standard story for education is unfortunately ‘zero sum mindset’. As an example in Year 7 Maths often half the class thinks they are good at maths and half the class thinks they are bad at maths.
Positive Sum Mindset = growth of myself vs myself yesterday
Zero Sum Mindset = myself vs others
The structure of traditional maths tests are often zero sum, they are an infrequently done one off judgement of student’s ability. Students just get one single percentage. This leads students to think in very binary terms, Eg if you get 100% things are really good, but if you get 50% things are really bad. There isn’t an ability to see growth because they’re only done once per topic and even if you improve your score between chapters, what is due to growth Vs a different topic isn’t clear. They actively develop students to have a zero-sum mindset
Can you make explicit ‘Positive Sum Metrics’ for students and teachers? I think you can… but that is not for discussion today.
*Aside: Places where minimum levels of performance are required vs Places where there is no floor
Let’s say that the minimum level to do a sufficient+ job is L10 but you are operating at L5. It’s best then that you go and level yourself up to L10 before doing much work in that space.
You effectively play in the little leagues before you get to play in the big leagues. Yes this is going against some of what I said above!
If you can play practice games with ‘big league people’ that might be great to level you up… but the big league people might not want you on the field for actual games until you have levelled up enough.
If you only take away one thing
Giving up will get you nowhere.
Having a positive sum mindset might get you anywhere!
I’ve found that learning how to play zero sum games with a positive sum mindset is key to growing yourself and others.