Robert Wright champions a theory that invokes the logic of non-zero-sum games.

TRUE: Robert Wright has advanced and argued for a theory (e.g. in Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, 2000) built on the logic of non-zero-sum games, such as the growth of cooperation in human history. MOSTLY TRUE: Wright clearly argues for a non-zero-sum framework, but the 'theory' it is linked to in the passage (e.g. of declining violence or expanding moral circles) is a slight extension of what he argues. MIXED: Wright discusses non-zero-sum logic prominently but does not clearly champion it as an explanatory theory. MOSTLY FALSE: Wright mentions non-zero-sum games only in passing. FALSE: Wright has not advanced such a theory.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Robert Wright gets cosmic Salon · 4 April 2000

   “Wright convincingly argues that history has always been dominated by non-zero-sum events rather than zero-sum ones.”

2. E2 Robert Wright gets cosmic Salon · 4 April 2000

   “Wright begins his book by using game theory to divide human relations into zero-sum games where “one contestant’s gain is another’s loss” and non-zero-sum games where “the players’ interests overlap.””

3. E3 Robert Wright gets cosmic Salon · 4 April 2000

   “More important, evolution itself functions as a non-zero-sum game.”

An independent Salon review of Wright's book, published in 2000, says Wright "convincingly argues that history has always been dominated by non-zero-sum events" (E1). It says he opens the book with a game-theory split between zero-sum and non-zero-sum games (E2) and treats evolution itself as a non-zero-sum game (E3). Together these show that Wright argued for non-zero-sum logic as his central explanation of history, not as a passing remark. That meets the TRUE criterion well before the 2007 judging date.