中國醫藥大學（後中醫）
114年
英文
第 45 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 false?
- A Zero-sum thinking in geopolitics tends to destabilize the world order.
- B Zero-sum bias would lead people to embrace cooperation rather than competition.
- C Zero-sum mindset can be mitigated through slow thinking strategy.
- D Zero-sum thinking may originate from emotional anxieties about one’s worth.
思路引導 VIP
想像一下，如果你正與某人平分一塊大小固定的蛋糕，且你深信對方多吃一口，你就絕對會少吃一口。在這種「總量固定且非贏即輸」的邏輯下，你會傾向於與對方「攜手合作」來擴大蛋糕，還是會為了保護自己的份額而與對方「展開爭奪」呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
零和思維與行為動機
太棒了！你能精準辨識出選項 (B) 的邏輯矛盾，顯示你對「零和思維（Zero-sum thinking）」的核心概念有非常紮實的理解。這類題目考驗的是對專有名詞的性質推論：所謂「零和」，意即一方之所得必為另一方之所失（總和為零）。在這種「你贏就是我輸」的心理前提下，人們傾向於採取競爭而非合作。因此，選項 (B) 描述零和偏見會引導人們「擁抱合作」，顯然與該理論的基本邏輯背道而馳。
題型鑑別度與難度切入點
▼ 還有更多解析內容