I have been long thinking about positive-sum vs zero-sum games, and what the optimal mindset to adopt is depending on how you have identified the game you are playing (and the players). The current conclusion I have reached is that playing zero-sum games with a positive-sum mindset internally, actually helps you play the zero-sum game better from an internal resilience perspective. But, you can’t be ignorant of the existence of zero-sum games. They need to be effectively understood, along with their constraints.
In simpler terms, if you understand the problem-set, then you can solve it. And the process of solving it, is in fact a positive-sum, error-correcting and theory-laden process (similar to how David Deutsch would describe it).
My exploration of this was sparked by recently reading Signull’s article here, which made a strong assertion:
2025-03-09 internal vs. external competitionA short summary is the following:
“The “compete with yourself (internally)” mantra is a feel-good oversimplification that only applies in positive-sum situations—like improving fitness, learning new skills, or creating art—where one’s progress doesn’t come at someone else’s expense. In contrast, in zero-sum games such as college admissions, high-paying jobs, elections, or achieving social status—where resources are limited and one person’s gain means another’s loss—you must compete externally. The key is to accurately identify the type of game you’re in and adopt the appropriate mindset accordingly, rather than relying on an internally focused approach that can be counterproductive in truly competitive, limited-resource scenarios.”
But I have also been influenced by Naval and David Deutsch, who adopt a positive-sum world view based on rational optimism, abundance, fallibility and error-correction to the games that they choose to play. So how should I square the two?
The question I have been exploring is whether some zero-sum games (e.g. competitively employed jobs) could be best-played with a positive-sum mentality. So, could you play zero-sum games in a positive-sum manner, and could you get a better outcome?
It’s an intriguing idea. In many contexts, especially those that aren’t “pure” zero‐sum, adopting a positive‐sum mindset could lead to better long‐term outcomes. In practical terms, this means focusing on self‐improvement rather than merely trying to “beat” your opponent, might actually serve you better in the longer-term and improve your odds of winning future zero-sum games. You just need to not be wiped out in the process.
My current view is that if you reframe a zero‐sum situation as an opportunity to learn and grow, you might end up better off than if you viewed every win as someone else’s loss, over the longer-term.
However, there are some caveats and critiques to consider:
- Mismatch with True Zero-Sum Settings:
- Risk of Underestimating Competition:
- Context Matters:
In a strictly defined zero‐sum game—like matching pennies or poker—the total “pie” is fixed. Adopting a positive‐sum mindset here might improve your emotional resilience, but it won’t change the mathematical structure. If you’re too relaxed, you might forgo essential defensive strategies and end up exploited by a shrewder opponent.
A positive‐sum mindset can sometimes lead to underestimating how hard your competitors are working. If you focus solely on self-improvement and assume the environment is abundant, you might miss important competitive signals that require strategic adjustments. I like Peter Thiel's view that extreme pessimism and extreme optimism are both just lazy.
In many real-life “competitive” arenas—such as career development, innovation, or even certain market dynamics—the resources are not strictly fixed. In these settings, shifting your focus from “winning” against others to creating new value (a positive‐sum approach) can indeed be beneficial
Now, I might be wrong. I certainly don’t want to be naïve or ignorant. But it seems that the problem-set is more nuanced. The categorization of “getting into an elite university” as completely zero-sum, should not be categorized in such a binary fashion. Yes, these games and situations exist, and yes they are competitive. But your life path is not nearly as zero-sum as you think it is, even if you are playing any of these games. Zero-sum games need to be re-framed into positive-sum, for you, internally, to be able to play them to the best of your internal ability. And that is all you can count on. You will end up better off, less distracted and less stressed, than viewing a win as someone else’s loss consistently. That being said, zero-sum games are real.
The constraints to keep in mind therefore are; (i) positive-sum mindset towards zero-sum games will improve your emotional resilience, which is great, but it won’t change the mathematical structure of the game, (ii) you can’t be too relaxed to forgo defensive strategies, (iii) shrewder zero-sum opponents are looking for negative interactions without iteration, so you need to understand their incentive and motivation structure and play to it (without adopting the zero-sum world view) , (iv) some zero-sum games might seem zero-sum, but only superficially so - life goes on.
With these constraints in mind, you can solve a zero-sum game problem set with a positive-sum and abundance approach.
Risk-protected upside, not just taking the pie from others, but making the pie bigger and taking from a bigger pie.