hce_cmu
114年
英文
第 41 題
📖 題組：
Passage B In contemporary global discourse, zero-sum thinking—the belief that gains for one party necessarily result in losses for another—has experienced a concerning resurgence. This perspective, which conceptualizes success as existing within a framework of finite resources and opportunities, merits critical examination. Zero-sum thinking appears to have evolutionary roots, originating from primitive competition for scarce resources essential to survival. Anthropologist George M. Foster’s seminal 1965 research in rural Mexican communities identified “an image of limited good”—a worldview in which desirable elements such as land, wealth, friendship and love, manliness and honor, power and influence, exist in finite quantity and are always in short supply. Contemporary psychological research confirms that perceptions of scarcity and threat serve as fundamental catalysts for zero-sum thinking. However, as noted in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, “purely zero-sum situations are exceedingly rare” in actual human experience. The discrepancy between zero-sum perception and reality constitutes what psychologist Daniel V. Meegan identifies as a “zero-sum bias”—a tendency to perceive competitive scenarios where cooperation might prove more beneficial. Despite its proponents often positioning themselves as pragmatic realists, research indicates that zero-sum thinking is fundamentally grounded in fear and insecurity rather than rational assessment. The historical precedent for zero-sum thinking in international relations can be traced to European mercantilism of the 16th-19th centuries, when wealth was conceptualized primarily through gold, silver, and territorial acquisition. This paradigm produced destructive trade monopolies and protectionist policies that precipitated numerous conflicts. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) represented a pivotal theoretical challenge to mercantilist assumptions. Smith demonstrated that wealth transcended precious metals to encompass gross domestic product—the totality of economic activity—and could be expanded through productivity improvements, innovation, and comparative advantage in trade. The post-WWII international order emerged as a deliberate counterpoint to zero-sum geopolitics, establishing institutions like the International Monetary Fund to foster economic interdependence. This system, despite its imperfections, facilitated unprecedented global prosperity, with fourfold economic growth since the 1980s and significant nuclear disarmament achievements. Recent years have witnessed a troubling reversion to zero-sum thinking across multiple domains. As Hal Brands observes, this represents “a backlash against the positive-sum thinking of the post-Cold War era—the idea that globalization could lift all boats.” This resurgence manifests in protectionist trade policies, xenophobic immigration rhetoric, and increasingly confrontational international relations. Some political leaders have displayed pronounced zero-sum tendencies, conceptualizing international relations as fundamentally competitive rather than cooperative. This approach threatens to undermine the foundations of the post-war liberal order and potentially revive destructive great power rivalries. Zero-sum thinking extends beyond geopolitics into domestic social dynamics. Psychologist J. Clifton suggests that contemporary zero-sum thinking may stem from anxieties about meaning and significance rather than material scarcity. Many individuals perceive that the recognition of another group’s importance necessarily diminishes their own—a mechanism that exacerbates social polarization. Research indicates that deliberate intervention can mitigate zero-sum thinking. Michael Smithson notes that individuals faced with zero-sum scenarios often respond by “minimizing investment and holding back resources”—effectively boycotting the zero-sum framework. This creates opportunities for collaborative actors to establish alternative paradigms. Educational interventions can prove effective. Smithson reports success in encouraging students collaboration by positioning themselves as a common challenge, thereby reframing competition as cooperation. Similarly, Daniel Kahneman’s work demonstrates that reflective slow thinking can overcome instinctive zero-sum assumptions. The challenge for contemporary societies involves cultivating awareness of zero-sum biases and developing institutional frameworks that incentivize cooperation. Economic policies addressing inequality may prove particularly important, as research consistently demonstrates correlations between resource disparity and zero-sum mentalities. A transition toward positive-sum thinking requires acknowledging the legitimate grievances that fuel zero-sum perspectives while demonstrating that collaborative approaches ultimately generate superior outcomes for all participants. By recognizing our shared interests in addressing transnational challenges like climate change, pandemic response, and technological regulation, we may transcend the limitations of zero-sum thinking and construct more productive paradigms for global cooperation.
Passage B In contemporary global discourse, zero-sum thinking—the belief that gains for one party necessarily result in losses for another—has experienced a concerning resurgence. This perspective, which conceptualizes success as existing within a framework of finite resources and opportunities, merits critical examination. Zero-sum thinking appears to have evolutionary roots, originating from primitive competition for scarce resources essential to survival. Anthropologist George M. Foster’s seminal 1965 research in rural Mexican communities identified “an image of limited good”—a worldview in which desirable elements such as land, wealth, friendship and love, manliness and honor, power and influence, exist in finite quantity and are always in short supply. Contemporary psychological research confirms that perceptions of scarcity and threat serve as fundamental catalysts for zero-sum thinking. However, as noted in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, “purely zero-sum situations are exceedingly rare” in actual human experience. The discrepancy between zero-sum perception and reality constitutes what psychologist Daniel V. Meegan identifies as a “zero-sum bias”—a tendency to perceive competitive scenarios where cooperation might prove more beneficial. Despite its proponents often positioning themselves as pragmatic realists, research indicates that zero-sum thinking is fundamentally grounded in fear and insecurity rather than rational assessment. The historical precedent for zero-sum thinking in international relations can be traced to European mercantilism of the 16th-19th centuries, when wealth was conceptualized primarily through gold, silver, and territorial acquisition. This paradigm produced destructive trade monopolies and protectionist policies that precipitated numerous conflicts. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) represented a pivotal theoretical challenge to mercantilist assumptions. Smith demonstrated that wealth transcended precious metals to encompass gross domestic product—the totality of economic activity—and could be expanded through productivity improvements, innovation, and comparative advantage in trade. The post-WWII international order emerged as a deliberate counterpoint to zero-sum geopolitics, establishing institutions like the International Monetary Fund to foster economic interdependence. This system, despite its imperfections, facilitated unprecedented global prosperity, with fourfold economic growth since the 1980s and significant nuclear disarmament achievements. Recent years have witnessed a troubling reversion to zero-sum thinking across multiple domains. As Hal Brands observes, this represents “a backlash against the positive-sum thinking of the post-Cold War era—the idea that globalization could lift all boats.” This resurgence manifests in protectionist trade policies, xenophobic immigration rhetoric, and increasingly confrontational international relations. Some political leaders have displayed pronounced zero-sum tendencies, conceptualizing international relations as fundamentally competitive rather than cooperative. This approach threatens to undermine the foundations of the post-war liberal order and potentially revive destructive great power rivalries. Zero-sum thinking extends beyond geopolitics into domestic social dynamics. Psychologist J. Clifton suggests that contemporary zero-sum thinking may stem from anxieties about meaning and significance rather than material scarcity. Many individuals perceive that the recognition of another group’s importance necessarily diminishes their own—a mechanism that exacerbates social polarization. Research indicates that deliberate intervention can mitigate zero-sum thinking. Michael Smithson notes that individuals faced with zero-sum scenarios often respond by “minimizing investment and holding back resources”—effectively boycotting the zero-sum framework. This creates opportunities for collaborative actors to establish alternative paradigms. Educational interventions can prove effective. Smithson reports success in encouraging students collaboration by positioning themselves as a common challenge, thereby reframing competition as cooperation. Similarly, Daniel Kahneman’s work demonstrates that reflective slow thinking can overcome instinctive zero-sum assumptions. The challenge for contemporary societies involves cultivating awareness of zero-sum biases and developing institutional frameworks that incentivize cooperation. Economic policies addressing inequality may prove particularly important, as research consistently demonstrates correlations between resource disparity and zero-sum mentalities. A transition toward positive-sum thinking requires acknowledging the legitimate grievances that fuel zero-sum perspectives while demonstrating that collaborative approaches ultimately generate superior outcomes for all participants. By recognizing our shared interests in addressing transnational challenges like climate change, pandemic response, and technological regulation, we may transcend the limitations of zero-sum thinking and construct more productive paradigms for global cooperation.
According to the passage, which of the following is accurate about zero-sum thinking?
- A It is a belief that resources are infinite and can be shared equally.
- B It is a conviction that winners gain at the expense of losers.
- C It refers to a psychological condition that affects mostly political leaders.
- D It denotes a modern concept that emerged shortly after World War II.
思路引導 VIP
想像你和朋友正在分享一塊大小固定的披薩，如果你的朋友決定要多拿兩塊披薩，在披薩總量不變的情況下，這會對你手中剩下的披薩數量產生什麼樣的必然影響呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你精確地掌握了這篇文章的核心概念！選 (B) 非常正確。這題考驗的是對學術名詞定義的擷取能力，文章第一段開門見山地定義了 zero-sum thinking：這是一種認為「一方的獲得必然導致另一方損失」的信念（gains for one party necessarily result in losses for another）。這與選項 (B) 所描述的「贏家的獲得是以輸家的損失為代價」完全吻合。
文本核心與選項析辨
從測驗的角度來看，這題具有中等難度的鑑別度，因為文章篇幅較長且涉及多個學科面向（人類學、經濟學、心理學）。你能避開干擾項——例如選項 (A) 的「資源無限」與文中提到的「有限資源 (finite resources)」相矛盾；以及選項 (D) 試圖混淆時間軸（零和思維可追溯至 16 世紀的重商主義而非二戰後）——這說明你在閱讀時，不僅能快速定位關鍵句，還能精準排除文章中出現過但不相關的時空細節。這類定義辨析題是長閱測驗的基本盤，你能穩穩拿下這分，展現了很扎實的閱讀理解功底！