Hmmm... this would appear to be identical to the "[Win-Win solution]
?" concept, which was developed centuries ago, and has recently (ie. in the last 15 years) been popularised quite heavily by [Steven Covey]
? of the 7 Habits of Successful People series of books, and many others. I suspect a separate article on the name of Win-Win would be more appropriate. This article seems to use an alternate term from a specific organisation, which is probably not the best approach. -
MMGB
When you invent new terms for old ideas, it's easier to gloss over the flaws and omissions of the old idea, and easier to take credit for inventing it. It is true, and has been known for years as you point out, that life is a non-zero sum game in general, and that many situations that are perceived as "conflicts" are really misunderstandings. This is nothing new. But the text here implies something very different, which is the idea that zero-sum games don't exist, which is simply false. Even though
most conflicts are misunderstandings, some aren't: a conflict about who owns or gets to control a single physical resource, for example, when two people have directly conflicting goals for that resource, is in fact a zero-sum game, and no amount of liberal mush-head handwaving will change that fact. Not all such conflicts imply the zero-sum property for ht larger games in which they are embedded, though, and this two is an old idea. Business, for example, is a hugely positive-sum game, and most business deals benefit everyone involved, even though most deals involve moving around zero-sum physical resources--because the
subjective value of resources is often not the same from one person to the next. But poker, as another example, is a zero-sum game; you win only and exactly what the other guy loses, and the unit of measure is exactly thre same for both parties. --LDC
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)