What game theory teaches us about war | Simon Sinek

Summary

The speaker explores the concept of finite vs. infinite games in global politics and business, illustrating how the United States made a critical mistake after the Cold War by misinterpreting it as a finite game. Drawing on examples from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the Cold War itself, the speaker emphasizes the importance of aligning national strategy with enduring values rather than short-term interests. The U.S. must recognize that the global contest is infinite, and by acting predictably according to its values, it can regain trust and stability in its foreign policy.

Takeaways

• 😀 The United States made a policy decision at the end of the Cold War that has contributed to instability and uncertainty in the world today, based on flawed assumptions from Game Theory.
• 😀 Game Theory distinguishes between finite games (with fixed rules and players, like baseball) and infinite games (where the objective is to perpetuate the game itself).
• 😀 In an infinite game, there are no winners or losers, only players who either drop out when they lose the will or resources to continue.
• 😀 The Cold War was stable because both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were playing an infinite game, focused on continuing the game rather than defeating each other.
• 😀 When finite players (who play to win) face infinite players (who play to survive or keep playing), the finite players inevitably lose, as seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
• 😀 The U.S. misunderstood the nature of the Cold War and incorrectly thought it had 'won' when the Soviet Union dropped out, causing the U.S. to impose its will on the world in a way that backfired.
• 😀 The tensions of the Cold War—nuclear, ideological, and economic—are still relevant today, replaced by new players and threats like Pakistan, China, and Islamic extremism.
• 😀 The U.S. is still trying to play a finite game, trying to 'win' against threats, without recognizing that it is in an infinite game where the objective is to continue the contest, not to defeat enemies.
• 😀 Effective leadership requires clarity about what game is being played and what values guide decision-making, rather than reacting solely to short-term interests.
• 😀 When U.S. policies are based solely on interests (like in Syria or Crimea), they become unpredictable, which undermines trust with allies and plays into the hands of enemies who can exploit this unpredictability.

Q & A

What is the difference between finite and infinite games, and how do they relate to geopolitics?

Finite games have known players, fixed rules, and a specific objective—like baseball or traditional warfare. Infinite games, on the other hand, have known and unknown players, changeable rules, and the primary objective is to keep the game in play. Geopolitics is often an infinite game, as countries continuously adapt their strategies without a defined endpoint.

Why did the Cold War create a stable geopolitical system?

The Cold War was an infinite game because neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union could truly 'win'; instead, they aimed to outlast each other. The stability came from the recognition that the game was ongoing, and the focus was on maintaining the game itself rather than defeating the opponent.

How did the U.S. approach the Cold War in a finite way after the Berlin Wall came down?

After the Berlin Wall fell, the U.S. declared victory in the Cold War, assuming they had 'won' the infinite game. This assumption led to short-term, finite thinking in U.S. foreign policy, which alienated allies and led to unpredictable strategies, ultimately causing instability.

What is the mistake the U.S. made in Vietnam and Afghanistan based on game theory?

In both Vietnam and Afghanistan, the U.S. played a finite game, aiming to defeat the enemy. However, the adversaries, like the Viet Cong and the Mujahideen, were playing an infinite game—they were fighting for survival, and they were willing to continue indefinitely. The U.S.'s inability to understand this led to failure.

How does the concept of finite vs. infinite games apply to business?

In business, many companies act as finite players, focused on short-term goals like winning the next quarter or year. However, businesses with a long-term vision and a clear sense of purpose (playing an infinite game) tend to succeed over time, outlasting companies focused only on immediate victories.

Why is it crucial to understand the game you are playing in geopolitics?

Understanding the type of game you're playing is essential because it determines your strategy. If you treat an infinite game like a finite one, you may misstep, make erratic decisions, and fail to maintain long-term stability. Geopolitics requires an infinite mindset, focusing on enduring principles rather than short-term wins.

What was the U.S.'s policy towards the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and how did it reflect an infinite strategy?

The U.S. policy, under National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, was not to win the war but to make it as costly as possible for the Soviets, draining their resources and will to continue. This approach reflected an infinite strategy, as the goal was to outlast the Soviets rather than achieve a definitive victory.

What are the dangers of pursuing short-term interests without regard for values?

When decisions are made based solely on short-term interests, such as in military or diplomatic interventions, they can become inconsistent, unpredictable, and morally questionable. This undermines trust with allies and creates opportunities for adversaries to exploit the lack of clear values and strategy.

Why is the U.S.'s role in the world currently perceived as unpredictable?

The U.S. is currently perceived as unpredictable because its decisions often seem to prioritize short-term interests over long-term values. This creates confusion among allies who no longer know what the U.S. stands for and offers opportunities for adversaries to capitalize on this inconsistency.

What role do values play in shaping U.S. foreign policy, and why is it important?

Values are essential because they define what a country stands for in an infinite game. When decisions are aligned with enduring values, the country becomes predictable and trustworthy, strengthening relationships with allies and deterring adversaries. Values provide stability in the face of changing circumstances, ensuring consistent leadership over time.