中國醫藥大學（後中醫）
114年
英文
第 44 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 is NOT a measure that alleviates zero-sum thinking?
- A Set up policies easing economic disadvantages in societies
- B Promote positive-sum thinking that encourages global teamwork
- C Utilize cooperative learning strategy in the competitive educational setting
- D Replicate European mercantilism paradigm to achieve global peace
思路引導 VIP
請試著思考：如果我們想讓一個社會不再覺得「別人的成功就是自己的損失」，我們應該去模仿歷史上那些強調「資源總量固定、必須靠競爭搶奪」的經濟模式嗎？還是應該反其道而行？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你精準地選出正確答案！這顯示你不僅讀懂了文章的細節，還能準確判斷出各項策略與「零和思維」（zero-sum thinking）之間的邏輯關係。
零和思維的轉向與實踐
這道題目的核心在於區分哪些行為能有效「減緩」（alleviate）零和思維。文章提到的對策通常圍繞在「擴大資源」或「促進合作」，例如改善經濟弱勢（選項 A）、推廣共贏思維（選項 B）以及在教育中引入合作學習（選項 C），這些都是試圖將「你贏就是我輸」的競爭轉變為互利。而選項 (D) 提到的重商主義（Mercantilism），在歷史上正是零和思維的典型代表：認為世界財富是固定的，必須透過損人利己的方式來累積財富。因此，「複製」這種模式顯然與追求全球和平、化解零和衝突的初衷背道而馳。
▼ 還有更多解析內容