中國醫藥大學（後中醫）
114年
英文
第 43 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 statements is true?
- A Gold, silver, and territorial acquisition are the only true measures of wealth.
- B Wealth accumulation can be expedited through increased productivity and innovation.
- C Globalization and positive-sum thinking are detrimental to national power.
- D International protectionist policies are essential to national prosperity.
思路引導 VIP
如果我們把一個國家的財富想像成一塊「蛋糕」，除了從別人的盤子裡搶過來之外，還有什麼方法可以讓每個人分到的蛋糕都變大呢？在現實世界中，什麼樣的行為能讓社會在不增加原料的情況下，卻能產出更多、更好的東西？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你準確地掌握了文章的核心概念！這道題能答對，說明你已經看穿了文章背後的邏輯架構。
現代經濟成長的核心邏輯
選項 (B) 之所以正確，是因為它完美契合了文中關於正向加總（positive-sum）思考的論述。在現代經濟觀點中，財富不再是像金銀（選項 A）那樣固定不變的總額，而是可以透過**提高生產力（productivity）與技術創新（innovation）**來創造額外的價值。這意味著一個國家的繁榮不必建立在剝削他國之上，而是能透過內部效率的提升來「加速（expedite）」財富的累積。
▼ 還有更多解析內容