Enlarge Blousehow To Do

interests me now comment on one of the fallacies discussed by Scruton: The zero-sum.

zero sum is that situation in which the sum of the profits of some participants is balanced to the sum of the losses of others (ie, what is participants earn about losing others). This is the case, for example, poker. Obviously, not all situations in which we find ourselves are zero-sum, but an optimist unscrupulous insists on extending the concept to all fields. Take the case of prosperity. The fallacy operates by adding the level of individual agents in a given time, cavalierly ignoring the different paths that may have led to different results. Then averaged for imagination, and, once defined the midline, all that's left over will reveal, therefore necessarily have obtained their position grabbing his hand to that below it. Thus, the success becomes evidence of guilt.

The fallacy of zero sum, applied to the study of the weight of the members of a family in which one is anorexic, leads to the conclusion that in fact what happens is that the rest are eating food the thinner. And that is exactly what makes the unscrupulous optimistic look at the international level, where the fallacy is applied with real fervor. Given the evidence that some countries achieve reasonable levels of prosperity while others stagnate in misery, the optimist does not try to analyze what is the recipe that leads to success, but it appears that guilt.

Note the reversal of the sequence prodigious intellectual fallacy causes. Get an advanced society depends on a delicate recipe made from different ingredients: the political system, economic system, the educational and civic leaders and population, the strength of laws and institutions, public authorities control , religion, level of corruption ... However, the zero-sum fallacy makes the best indicator that things are being done well on a test of guilt: if a company is not progressing because they have achieved social alchemy adequate, but because they exploited others. And just as the fallacy of blaming the companies that have done good homework, disclaims responsibility for those who have not done. Thus, an open and democratic society can be criminalized, while another ruled by corrupt dictators may well be seen as a victim.

Al insult the recipe successful, the application of zero-sum fallacy prevents most backward societies progress, offering instead a justification for its failure and a channel to express their resentment. But in reality, it seems that the unscrupulous optimistic not so concerned about the progress of disadvantaged societies as blaming the companies prevail, and that brings us to the origin of this fallacy.

As I said in a previous post, Scruton puts it, like the rest of analyzing, emotions arising in our caveman past. However, I think the origin of this fallacy is particularly close: the destruction of religion Marxist reality. More specifically, the zero-sum fallacy may be an attempt to save the failure of the prophecy of the pauperization (according to which capitalism would end up polarizing the entire wealth of the privileged few and a huge mass without resources), transferring it to the international arena. This gets the optimist barely keep their beliefs, and continue providing its power of some evil to blame for its failure.