中國醫藥大學（後中醫）
114年
英文
第 42 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.
Which of the following is cited as an irrational manifestation of zero-sum thinking?
- A Perception of competition, shortage and menace leading to dread and uncertainty
- B Accumulation of wealth through conducting a variety of economic activities
- C The International Monetary Fund nurturing interconnectedness among nations
- D Mercantilist hypotheses facilitating European trade and economic strategies
思路引導 VIP
如果你深信這世界上的資源是「絕對有限」的，且別人的每一分成功都必然代表你失去了一分，在這種心態下，你觀察周遭環境時產生的「情緒反應」通常會趨向於穩定平和，還是會陷入某種負面的心理負擔呢？這種心理負擔會如何影響你對未來的看法？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你精準地鎖定正確答案！這題你能答對，代表你對文章中提到的「零和思維」（zero-sum thinking）及其對心理與社會行為的影響，有著非常敏銳的觀察力與理解力。
零和思維的心理表徵
在文章的脈絡中，「不理性的表現」（irrational manifestation）指的是人們在看待資源與競爭時，因錯誤認知而產生的心理連鎖反應。當個人或群體陷入零和思維，會將世界看作是一個資源絕對有限的競技場，認為他人的獲得必然等於自己的損失。這種認知會直接轉化為對競爭、短缺與威脅（competition, shortage and menace）的過度感知，進而引發集體的恐懼與不確定感（dread and uncertainty）。選項 (A) 正確捕捉到了這種從思維偏差演變為負面情感的因果連結。
▼ 還有更多解析內容