The Pie is a Lie: Intro, Overview, Conclusion, TL;DR
When considering fruitful dialogue, that discussion that brings about good things, shared understanding, mutual insights, and even constructed goals and common ground, we often hit a wall. As we move forward, we feel that in one-on-one discussion, especially in dialogue and debate that touch on points of disagreement, somebody loses. The the Mouth Fruit series, we examine the source of this notion and—from many points of view—it does not apply to most things in life, especially in discussion with others.
Apple pie
In the first post of this series, called Apple Pie, we examine the nature of an apple pie and our feelings about that. We can all imagine one enjoying pie. We know that the amount of pie in a pie pan is fixed. We know that servings of pie in the same evening, become enjoyable as we consume. Examining these emotions help us understand how noticing the different sizes of slices can lead one into envy, perhaps progressing to malice.
Pie charts
Next in the series is an examination of the pie chart. We examine how pie charts work and how they can be poorly used and even missed used. Pie charts carry hidden message that the total is fixed. For a pie chart showing the sea coverage and land coverage of the earth, this makes sense. But for most other uses this transmits a cognitive bias. The fixed nature of a pie has created a hypnotic, ghostly message woo-woo-ing to us, where that message tells us to be blind to expansion of the pie.
Zero-sum
This can refer to a mathematical model or a psychological construct. The zero-sum notion is described in The Pie is a Lie: ➌ What's that Zero-Sum Stuff?.
Zero-sum game
An example is flipping a coin to see who gets the coin. There is a winner and a loser. Mathematicians see the scores as +1 and -1.
The state of a system between events might be represented by state elements where each element represents that part of the state of a component in focus and has numerical values.
x1, x2 , ... xn
The system might evolve (change) though a sequence of one or more distinct events: a, b, c, d. The values of the state elements might change after events.
In a zero-sum game, the model of system state variables in the focus has a rule that applies to any state in this chain. The zero-sum game asserts:
Δx1 + Δx2 + ... + Δxn = 0
If the first term increases, then at least one other term has to decrease.
This is equivalent to saying that given some sum of x in an initial state, that sum remains the same through out. That sounds like a pie or a pie chart with changes to where the slice boundaries are.
If the last 15.6% of a pie is to be split, there is a fixed amount left, that 15.6% of the total pie. We can split it by my slicing that in half through the center of the pie pan. You and I get the same amount. Now suppose I move the knife over before cutting so that my portion increases a little. Your portion then has to decrease with the same amount. The increase, a positive value, and the decrease , a negative value add up to zero. I get more. More! Bra-ha-ha-ha!
Zero-sum thinking
The zero-sum thinking comes from a zero-sum mindset, a psychological construct. This is seen when a person has a strong view that when any social interaction occurs there is a gain equal to a loss. When two interact, one gains and the other loses. This construct is considered harmful, but not immutable.
Business
In the fourth post, we see that this comes up in how we view business activities. Most negotiations are not zero-sum games despite the common conception that this is true. In addition, failing to see that the total of that shown in a pic chart is not fixed can be the downfall of a business.
Microeconomics
Microeconomics shows that honest trade is a good example where both parties benefit. This expands to other interactions such as fruitful dialogue.
We also see that microeconomics has directed its focus away from the strange indifference graphs in dialogue.
Moving away from Win! Win! Win!
At the end of the series, we examine a statement about biting and kissing. Is a win-win situation so unimaginable? Can two who disagree move into dialogue where both come out ahead. Can we expand the scope of the "game" so that it is no longer zero-sum?
TL;DR
The pie is a lie; fruitful dialogue is win-win.